Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Authority Housing

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to encourage more local authorities to transfer their housing stock to alternative landlords.[4875]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): To facilitate the transfer of council estates in poor condition, I announced on 28 November a new deprived estates challenge fund worth more than £300 million over the next three years.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large-scale voluntary transfers of housing stock have several benefits, including the diversification of housing stock, better management and faster repairs for tenants while providing capital receipts for local authorities which can be put back into social housing, used to pay off debts or used to reduce the council tax burden on council tax payers?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am pleased to see that authorities such as Manchester are now seeking to use LSVT to ensure that they can tap the capital that is tied up in housing estates and use it for the benefit of tenants.

Area Cost Adjustment

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the inquiry into the area cost adjustment to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [4876]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): It is our intention that the review team should report in June 1996. Professor Robert Elliott of the University of Aberdeen has agreed to chair the review of the area cost adjustment. He is an expert on labour markets and earnings in the public sector. The local authority associations have nominated Roy MacIver, until recently the Secretary-General of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. My right hon. Friend has nominated David McDonald, a former under-secretary in my Department.
Draft terms of reference for the review are being discussed by members of the review team and local authorities' representatives. When these are settled, a copy will be placed in the Library.

Mr. Fabricant: That sounds encouraging. Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be something

intrinsically wrong with a system whereby a school in Staffordshire with 900 students receives more than £250,000 less than a similar school in Surrey which has similar costs? Is not it even more wrong that Labour-controlled Staffordshire council is sitting on huge reserves which it does not use? Is it not about time that we funded schools centrally from the Department for Education and Employment? Let us have central funding, but local control.

Mr. Curry: I do not agree that something is intrinsically wrong with a system in which there are differences in funding. The fact is that there are schools in different areas, and the purpose of the review is to find out what the total additional costs are. On that matter, my hon. Friend and I will have to agree to disagree.
As far as Staffordshire is concerned, a 3.1 per cent. permitted increase in budget and a 5 per cent. per capita increase in education funding should be fully adequate to fund increased demography and any reasonable teachers' pay award.

Mr. Tipping: The Minister said that the report would be available in June next year. Will he now give a commitment that a new and fair system will be in place for the financial year 1997-98? Does he appreciate that local authorities want action and not words? The present system discriminates against Nottinghamshire and the east midlands, which just want a fair deal.

Mr. Curry: Everyone wants a fair deal, but everyone disagrees as to what that fair deal is. There is a very good case for taking into account total employment costs around the country. In the review, we are trying to bring up to date this indicator, as we do with other indicators on a regular cycle. If the review team is able to come up with an agreed outcome which is robust and gives better answers than we have at the moment, we will seek to employ that at the earliest opportunity.

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present system prescribes that a person who takes one step across the border of Cambridgeshire into Bedfordshire is suddenly deemed to be in a very expensive area? Is this not a crazy system which has gone on for far too long? I appreciate my hon. Friend's efforts in this matter, but will he make sure that there is no undue delay in the review? Will he consider using the travel-to-work area system, rather than the arbitrary county boundaries?

Mr. Curry: We examined carefully the travel-to-work area system in the past year, and it did not prove sufficiently robust. The county councils tried to make their scheme of actual costs work, and that did not work either. That is why we have introduced an independent review, and we have appointed as chairman somebody who is an expert in labour market economics, because this is about costs in the labour market. I hope that the review will be able to produce a robust outcome that all the parties will agree produces the best system. That is perhaps the most optimistic part of my expectations.

Mr. Dobson: Can the Minister confirm that, according to Government figures, if Staffordshire county council were to receive the same grant allocation for education per pupil as the Tory borough of Westminster, it would be able to recruit 4,895 extra teachers next year?

Mr. Curry: Would the hon. Gentleman like to make the same calculation for Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Camden and Lambeth? What benefits Westminster benefits all the other inner London authorities, and it is about time that the hon. Gentleman realised it.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effects of the decision to raise capping limits on local authority expenditure. [4877]

Mr. Gummer: The flexibility is to enable local authorities to meet priorities in education, and has been given in response to local authorities' requests and assurances that they will act responsibly.

Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed capping limits for Suffolk county council should prevent it from wasting taxpayers' money? Does he share my outrage at the squandering of council tax payers' money in the form of the council leader's Christmas card, which bears the red rose insignia of the Labour party? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an utterly tasteless display of Labour propaganda at Christmas is an absolute disgrace?

Mr. Gummer: I was surprised, as my hon. Friend was, to receive such a Christmas card from the Labour leader of Suffolk county council. I believe that the Opposition would be extremely annoyed if the Department of the Environment sent out Christmas cards with the Tory torch—even though that would be justified, as only the Government have an environment policy.

Ms Eagle: As the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has admitted that the settlement for schools will be used up by increased numbers of pupils, salaries and inflation, and as the Treasury has also admitted that council taxes are expected to go up by 8 per cent., is not it therefore true that council tax payers will be paying more and getting less under the new settlement?

Mr. Gummer: No, I do not think that it is. The hon. Lady would know that, if she looked at the facts and at councils that are properly run and that seek to make savings when unnecessary spending takes place. We have just heard about a small example in Suffolk. More than £2 million has been spent on signs for roads in Suffolk, and £250,000 on a road that will never be built. That is only in one county, and if that money were applied to education, much more could be done.

Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the removal of capping restrictions, together with the 5.5 per cent. increase in the education budget for Lancashire, means that there is no excuse whatever for the county council not to pass on that money in full to schools; and that no justification from the controlling Labour group will be accepted as an excuse if parents, Members of Parliament and others see that that does not happen?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that everybody in Lancashire, as in every county in the country, now knows precisely how much extra money is available for schools. If it does not get through to the schools, it will be the Labour-controlled county council's fault.

Empty Houses

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many empty houses there are in the United Kingdom. [4878]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): There are 845,000 empty houses in England.

Mr. Cunningham: When will the Minister stop being complacent about the large numbers of homeless people? Specifically, what will he do about the Department of Trade and Industry's void properties and the Ministry of Defence's void properties?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should know of the importance that we attach to reducing the number of empty Government-owned homes. We made that a priority in our White Paper; and the announcement of the privatisation of married quarters will also assist the process. The hon. Gentleman should also realise that, included in the total that I have given him, there are a large number of empty private properties, many of which have been brought into use in the private rented sector during the past few years as a result of our deregulation proposals. The Labour party always wants more regulation—that is the party's instinct—which would reduce the supply and reduce the amount of private rented accommodation available for homeless people.

Mr. Dunn: Although I accept that a large number of empty homes are owned by local authorities, will the Minister confirm that 18 of the 20 worst local authorities in terms of empty homes are Labour-controlled?

Mr. Clappison: Certainly. It is a shame that some local authorities with high numbers of vacant properties cannot reach the standards of those with low numbers. Hackney, Labour-controlled, has the highest number of empty properties—5 per cent. It is a shame that it cannot match the standards of Wandsworth, fewer than 1 per cent. of whose properties are vacant.

Mr. Raynsford: Why will not Ministers acknowledge their failure to tackle the scandal of empty properties, instead of attacking local authorities? Incidentally, local authorities are the only organisations to have reduced the number of their empty properties in the past few years. Will the Minister recognise that the Government's record is the worst of all? The number of empty Government properties has increased scandalously, in fact. The Ministry of Defence has the worst record; its homes should now be offered to people in need instead of being privatised under the disgraceful deal which the Secretary of State for Defence is doing with his adviser.

Mr. Clappison: It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman cannot join me in maintaining that the worst performing local authorities should try to reach the standards of the best. It is also a shame that he had to ride to the rescue of the beleaguered Labour-controlled Hackney council.
We have attached great importance to bringing empty Government homes back into use, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The White Paper gives great priority to that, and to our proposal to auction surplus empty homes after they have been vacant for six months.


The hon. Gentleman must decide, with the hostility to privatisation that he has just displayed and his commitment to more regulation, whether he is part of new or old Labour. At the moment he is certainly pitching his tent with old Labour.

Planning Permission

Mr. Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department will reconsider the powers of county councils and district councils to give themselves planning permission on their own land. [4879]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): The procedures governing local authority development were revised in 1992. We have no plans for a further review at present.

Mr. Spicer: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is almost exactly the same answer as I had to give when I was the Minister responsible for planning? It has not worn well with the passage of time. Does he accept that, in the interests of natural justice, the gamekeeper should in this context be separated from the poacher?

Mr. Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend accepts that the right answer should be given by successive Ministers. Of course we have looked at the matter; the last thing we want is abuse by local authorities. If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that and draws it to my attention, I shall certainly look at it closely.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that these circumstances could be dealt with by a more general change? There could be a right of appeal against planning permission that is granted, just as there is now a right to appeal against a refusal. There is a pressing case for such a balance generally, not just in relation to local authorities.

Mr. Jones: The Environment Select Committee rejected that when it looked into the issue. It took a lot of evidence showing a conflict of interest, which is why the Government reviewed procedures at the time, in 1992.

Sir Irvine Patnick: A couple of weeks ago I initiated a debate on this very matter to which the Minister responded. The practice is becoming more and more prevalent: in order to raise cash, local authorities with land are capitalising on it and then giving themselves planning permission. But because this is not a national issue, it has not been called in by the Minister. Something must be done about this bad practice.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend has to recognise that the key thing is whether the proposals are in line with the local plan. If they are contrary to the local plan, they are referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and can be judged on their merits. On the other hand, if they are in accordance with the plan, the proper place to object to them is in the inquiry into the plan.

Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that his answer to his hon. Friend camouflages the crisis that affects our planning system? What is he going to do about the large backlog of cases at the planning inspectorate, the huge delays in processing appeals and the enormous cost of the

planning appeals system? When are we going to have a planning policy that is coherent, consistent and cost-effective?

Mr. Jones: I believe that we have exactly that. The point is that when we have all the plans in place for each local authority throughout the country, the situation will be much clearer and that will result in far fewer people having to test their planning applications at appeal because they will be able to judge them against the plan developed for that particular area.

North Downs

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss safeguarding the area of outstanding natural beauty of the north downs. [4880]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so. However, officials from our two Departments work closely together, particularly within the Government office for the south-east.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the area of outstanding natural beauty of the north downs there is a motorway construction site which is surplus to Department of Transport requirements? If Government rules prevent the Department from allowing Maidstone borough council to use that site for park and ride, there is a serious risk that it will be sold and, eventually, planning permission sought for a use totally inappropriate to an area of outstanding natural beauty. It will be his Department that will have to make that decision. Will he give an undertaking to discuss this difficult situation with the Department of Transport before it becomes very much more difficult to resolve?

Sir Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend is aware, I do not know the details of this matter. If they are as he describes, I would have thought that there would be some enormous planning hurdles to be overcome before planning permission could be given. Of course, if he is concerned, we will certainly discuss and look into the matter.

Water Companies

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the procedure for regulation of the water companies; and if he will make a statement. [4881]

Mr. Gummer: I have no plans to review the water industry's efficient regulatory system.

Mr. Purchase: Consumers will be thrilled by that scintillating answer. Is the Secretary of State aware that the second Cadbury review of corporate governance is considering seriously the question of supervisory boards? Would it not be sensible for the Secretary of State to consider how best we might proceed, given the abject failure of the present regulatory system, so that local people could once again sit on the supervisory boards and have a proper say about and input into the way in which the industry is regulated?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten the whole history of the water industry. We have problems


there at the moment because of the lack of investment under the Labour Government. I know that that is true because I read carefully the words of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who said that the Government had said that investment in the water industry had been cut under Labour. She said:
That is not true. The plans that we hoped to implement were not entirely fulfilled."—[0fficia Report, 30 November 1995; Vol. 267,c. 1385.]
The fact is that they were cut, cut and cut again. Now, the investment is continuing and it is properly regulated.

Mr. Barry Field: May I recommend to Mrs. Gummer that Father Christmas places in the Christmas stocking of my right hon. Friend a little pamphlet from Conservative central office which I wrote on this very subject to give my right hon. Friend a little light reading over Christmas? Does he agree that it is remarkable that no matter how much the Almighty allows it not to rain, the Opposition cannot bring themselves to agree that water metering is the best way forward for charging for water?

Mr. Gummer: I shall look forward to the pamphlet, but it is interesting that the Labour party is in favour of all environmental things in general but none of them in particular. The truth is that unless resources are properly looked after, we cannot have sustainable development. That is why the Labour party has no environment policy whatsoever.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Can the Minister confirm whether he has had reports that there are likely to be considerable water shortages next year, given the lack of rain last summer and the relatively dry weather this Christmas? If so, what is he doing in negotiation with the water regulator and others to tackle that?

Mr. Gummer: Those reports have one thing in common: they say that the shortage of water arises because of a shortage of rain. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a special way of delivering rain, discussions with the water regulator will make no difference. The water companies have an extensive programme of further investment and already spend extremely large sums. The retained profits and £3.5 billion of borrowing by the industry have financed that unprecedented investment. Much of it makes up for the lack of investment when the industry was nationalised, which is what the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) wants to return to. I assure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) that I am looking at the position in the south-west, which is one of the areas most affected.

Mr. Nicholls: The fact that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recently upheld Ofwat's decision to peg water charges in the south-west shows that regulation is working in terms of that aspect of the industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the water company in the south-west cannot even deliver water to every house in my constituency and cryptosporidium affects water supplies, further regulation of the quality as opposed to the cost of the service should not be ruled out at this stage? Will he comment on that?

Mr. Gummer: The drinking water inspectorate and the environment agency deal in their respective ways with quality. I am happy to point out to them, as I have in the past, my hon. Friend's views on those matters. I am glad that my hon. Friend points the House to the fact that the

mixture of the water regulator and the opportunity to appeal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission show the toughness of the regulation, the affect on South West Water and the insistence that South West Water meets higher standards immediately.

Low-cost Housing

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to allow local authorities to build more low-cost rented housing. [4882]

Mr. Clappison: Housing associations are now the main providers of new social housing. We expect around 70,000 additional lettings to be provided in 1995-96 through a mixture of public and private funding.

Mr. Miller: How many new starts will there be in 1996 in the low-cost rented sector?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman would do better to concentrate on the fact that housing associations provide 27,000 new starts out of a total of 70,000, which does not take account of the value of new social lettings through tenants going on to buy their own homes and the refurbishment of properties. He would do well to look at the value of the housing associations' contribution to providing high-quality property through the involvement of the private financial sector.

Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that, where social housing is provided, it should be of the highest possible quality? Will he convey to the Government the thanks of my constituents who have just received a 47 per cent. increase in the housing investment programme, which should be spent on improving the quality of existing council houses in Castle Point, which is currently substandard?

Mr. Clappison: I am happy to convey my hon. Friend's message. He is right to say that we seek to provide high-quality accommodation to meet social need.

Ministry of Defence Housing

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence over the planned privatisation of the Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate. [4883]

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence over the planned Ministry of Defence's married quarters estate. [4884]

Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we wish to see genuinely surplus property used to provide homes for people. It will help to create sustainable and mixed communities if homes are available for both purchase and rent.

Mr. O'Hara: Does the Minister share my concern that those perfectly good homes are being sold off like so much Army surplus stock when social housing, which is his Department's responsibility, is desperately needed?

Mr. Curry: The important thing is to ensure that people live in the surplus houses that are available. There are about 70,000 MOD homes, of which 14,000 are


empty. That is 14,000 too many. We must ensure that people can live in them. Whether that goes for social housing or for low-cost starter homes appears to me to be much less important. What matters is that they are used.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister recall that in July 1994, his Department's task force report described the MOD policy of having thousands of homes standing empty as short-sighted and anti-social? Is not it clear to the Minister that Defence Ministers have totally ignored the advice of his Department by having 14,098 empty properties—552 of them in the Prime Minister's constituency? When will he take firm action to ensure that the MOD releases those properties for social housing, as he has said repeatedly that it should?

Mr. Curry: That is precisely what the MOD now proposes. It is manifestly the case that the programme of disposal has not proceeded quickly enough in the past few years. The MOD has had to cope with "Options for Change", which has meant much shifting of personnel and many changes in personnel in the armed forces, so it needs to ensure that houses are available. What matters now is that we ensure that those houses are used. Regardless of whether those houses are made available for rent, the eventual purchaser will have no interest in holding on to empty stock. He will want to dispose. It is immaterial whether he disposes into the private rented sector or the home ownership sector. What matters is that those houses are used.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that tomorrow—I am sorry, on Friday—on Thursday—[Laughter]—I shall present the keys to some MOD homes to new tenants from Magna housing association in my constituency. Many of those MOD properties will be sold to the private sector. However, where housing associations exist in districts where an enormous number of homes become vacant as a result of MOD changes in constituencies such as mine, will he ensure that they have the funds to recycle those homes into super housing association homes, and to get the very many people on the waiting list into them?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has always been a stickler for terminological exactitude. [Interruption.] In other words, he knows what day of the week it is. He will know that some housing associations have already shown considerable interest in acquiring that stock and some of them, such as the North housing association, can do so with their own funds and do not need to apply for funding.
I am sure that the purchaser of the properties from the MOD will have no interest in holding on to the stock but will want to dispose of it, some of it to housing associations, who are natural purchasers.

Contaminated Land

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding contaminated land. [4885]

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is among those who have made representations, and I am sure that the whole House appreciates the campaign that he has mounted on behalf of those people affected by the asbestos tragedy in Armley. I hope that, for his part, the

hon. Gentleman will appreciate what the Environment Protection Act 1995 has done in pressing home again the important principle that the polluter should pay.

Mr. Battle: I am grateful for the Minister's comments at the start of his answer. When will the Government publish the contaminated land guidance to the Environment Protection Act? In Leeds, there are about 929 hectares of derelict land, about a quarter of which is believed to be contaminated. Would not it be a wise investment now to give the resources to the local authorities to allow them to survey that land and bring it into productive use for homes and jobs?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows of the statutory guidance that must be issued, and that consultation must take place before it is issued. We are expecting that consultation to be carried out early next year. In the meantime, those people in Leeds who have an interest in the tragedy of the contamination by asbestos, especially Leeds city council, would do well to reflect on the important principle that the polluter should pay, and the relevance to that principle of recent legal findings on other areas of liability affecting the asbestos tragedy.

Mr. Ashby: rose—

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."

Mr. Ashby: I thank the House. Does my hon. Friend realise that there are many pieces of contaminated land in inner-city areas, which are an eyesore? We cannot really wait for land values to catch up with the cost of dealing with the contaminated land. Does not he realise that there must be some public input in order to remove such eyesores in inner cities?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is aware that we have stuck firmly to the principle that the polluter should pay. He will realise the importance of the definitions that we established in the Environment Act 1995 and the regulatory machinery that we put in place to enforce that. I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend: we should deal effectively with the problem of contaminated land in inner city areas and develop those areas.

Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister agree that opencast mining is not the natural way to deal with contaminated land with coal reserves beneath it? Avenue coke works in my constituency has been closed and the land is highly contaminated—British Coal Property should be aware of the principle that the polluter should pay and should clean the area without inconveniencing local people by introducing opencast mining provisions.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have issued much tougher planning provisions to deal with that issue. Every case will be considered strictly on its merits in the context of those tough provisions.

Anti-social Tenants

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to help local authorities deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. [4886]

Mr. Curry: On 18 July and 18 October I announced a substantial package of measures to help local authorities


to deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. After discussions with the housing association movement, I intend to extend that package to housing associations.

Mrs. Lait: Many of my constituents, who have been badly affected by the behaviour of anti-social tenants, welcome the measures. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that many of the victims of anti-social tenants feel unable to give evidence because they are intimidated? Can he give the House an idea of how the victims will be protected by the package?

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend. Something that I hear repeatedly as I travel around the country is that people know who cause the problems on estates—it may be just one or two families or their kids—but cannot find a way of dealing with them. Those involved may be taken to court and put on probation or their case may be deferred and they return to the estate and cause problems again. We intend to introduce new powers involving injunctions associated with arrest so that people can take action without fear of intimidation. We also intend to make it possible to use professional witnesses, as some local authorities—mainly Labour authorities—are already doing, to try to remove the element of intimidation so that people can enjoy the right to live peaceably in their own homes.

Ms Ruddock: While the Government's proposals are welcome as far as they go, is it not a scandal that it has taken a decade of rising complaints and 17 deaths in noise disputes to get the Government to act? Does the Minister accept that every citizen has the right to enforcement of the law on noise? If so, when he gives responsibilities to local authorities why does he say that the level of service will depend on local conditions and resources? Where is the money to come from?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady confuses noise nuisance with anti-social behaviour. The latter is by far the more serious problem as no one has been materially injured by noise in the way that people have been injured by some anti-social behaviour. Both problems affect the quality of life on housing estates and both must be tackled and I hope that both sets of measures will receive a wide welcome. It is distressing that a number of Labour local authorities appear not to want even to implement the package on anti-social behaviour that we shall make available to them, although sensible authorities such as Manchester will implement it. I hope that the laggards will learn from the winners.

Mr. Hawkins: Following the point that my hon. Friend has rightly made, does he agree that in many of our seaside resorts Labour councillors and Labour activists are themselves unscrupulous landlords? They encourage people from outside the area, who become extremely anti-social tenants when they move in, and cause many of the social problems. Is that not the reality of Labour local government and does it not show, once again, that Labour is unfit to govern?

Mr. Curry: I am conscious of the problems in seaside resorts around the country caused by the changing nature of activities in those areas and by the people who settle there to collect benefit. We have taken measures under the planning system to resolve those problems and we shall take further measures to deal with houses in multiple occupation. I shall listen to the views of those who believe

that additional measures should be taken so that seaside towns can enjoy the prosperity which has been theirs historically and which they deserve for the future.

Energy Efficiency

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the number of homes to be insulated in the coming year under the home energy efficiency scheme; and if he will make a statement. [4887]

Mr. Robert B. Jones: We expect more than 400,000 homes to be insulated under the home energy efficiency scheme in the coming year, bringing the total number of homes insulated under the scheme to more than 2 million.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister explain why he has cut the home energy efficiency scheme budget by £31 million in direct breach of a Government and ministerial promise to everyone involved? Is he aware that that will lead to the insulation of 200,000 fewer houses next year, the loss of 1,000 jobs in the small business sector and the loss of £12 million to manufacturing industry? In view of the economic, health and other effects of his decision, will the Minister now reconsider?

Mr. Jones: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some £30 million was added to the scheme in anticipation of the acceptance of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. As he knows, the House voted against that measure, so the £30 million figure has now been reviewed.

Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend the Minister has anticipated the point that I intended to make. The home energy efficiency grant for last year was linked to the VAT increase. On that basis, given the uptake of the award, should the Government not be congratulated rather than criticised?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is clearly in favour of that excellent scheme. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) failed to appreciate the fact that we have protected the most vulnerable groups while continuing to offer a substantial discount to those people who do not qualify for the free service.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: How can the Minister justify a 20 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency in homes around the country when, as Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, he recommended increased expenditure on home energy efficiency schemes? Was it not a cynical exercise to increase expenditure for only one year in order to justify the imposition of VAT on home heating, which has hit the poorest and the worst off in our community?

Mr. Jones: That is clearly not the case, as we have protected vulnerable groups and increased the scheme considerably over the years. I remind the hon. Lady that there was no such scheme under the last Labour Government because they did not care about energy efficiency. We are determined to ensure that homes become more energy efficient in the coming year through a variety of measures, not least through the Home Energy Conservation Bill, which will encourage local authorities to make sure that people take up those schemes.

Rented Homes

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes for rent were started by local authorities and housing associations in 1978-79; and what is his estimate for 1996-97. [4888]

Mr. Curry: In 1978-79 local authorities started about 62,000 homes for rent and housing associations started about 17,000. This year we estimate that about 49,000 social homes for rent or shared ownership will be started by housing associations, or released through home ownership grant schemes, and about 1,000 will be started by local authorities.

Mrs. Prentice: In view of the statement earlier by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that only 27,000 homes will be started by housing associations in 1996-97 and the fact that under the last Labour Government 112,000 new homes, on average, were started each year, will the Minister tell us this Christmas time exactly how the Government intend to house the homeless?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady is confusing two points. With regard to the general provision of housing, what matters is that properties become available for new lettings. The only thing that concerns a family needing a home is whether a house is available and whether they will have a roof over their heads.
The housing associations are the main flag carriers of new social rented housing in this country. We also have an effective rough sleepers initiative to deal with the homelessness problem. The hon. Lady will know that we are developing that initiative and that we are consulting about how we should take it forward. It is operated by the Government and the housing charities in a unique display of very effective co-operation.

Local Government Finance, London

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss the standard spending assessment formula with representatives of the London boroughs. [4889]

Sir Paul Beresford: Standard spending assessments are discussed throughout the year with the local authority associations in the settlement working group and in the standard spending assessment sub-group. Currently, we are also available to meet authorities to hear their representations on our proposals for the 1996-97 settlement, including those for standard spending assessments.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister accept that the working of that complex formula can adversely affect outer London boroughs such as Harrow? Its proximity to Heathrow airport and its many ethnic minority communities mean that it has to bear extra costs of social provision, education, housing for the elderly and other services. Will my hon. Friend look again at the formula to see whether Harrow can have a fairer deal?

Sir Paul Beresford: I would dispute any suggestion that it has not had a fair deal. The shift of expenditure under the formula shows that Harrow has had a reasonable deal. I am sure that, with my hon. Friend's assistance, the local authority will be able to meet the demands well.

A comparison of local authorities around the country shows a massive variation. Labour authorities, in particular, seem to spend an enormous amount of money for little value. I am sure that my hon. Friend can assist his local authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4905]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Jones: Will the Government rejoin the future large aircraft project urgently? Does the Prime Minister understand that the French and the Germans are increasingly sceptical of our approach to the project and may move to exclude us? Is he also aware that 2,000 Airbus workers in my constituency have lost their jobs and that the remaining 2,000 are desperate for Britain to rejoin the project? Given Britain's pathetic economic growth prospects, surely the Prime Minister wants a strong aerospace industry.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an indication of the subject that he intended to raise and I appreciate his concern to protect jobs in his constituency. On the substantive point, the Government are committed to joining the future large aircraft programme provided that our conditions concerning price, performance and affordability are met. That matter is under discussion with the United Kingdom industries concerned and with our European colleagues.

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4907]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Shaw: In the next few days I shall be visiting the hospitals, the homes for the elderly and the retired and the nursing homes in my constituency. I shall visit many businesses and voluntary organisations. [Interruption.] All those people have benefited from additional resources as a result of the recent Budget. Can my right hon. Friend also give me some words to tell our customs officers in Dover, who are thoroughly against the policies that the Labour party would introduce in terms of the legalisation of cannabis and drugs? [Interruption.] Our customs officers have provided a valuable service in keeping Britain free from drugs. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he supports the customs officers in Dover in that action? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman an Adjournment debate next year.

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has just had one, Madam Speaker. I very much agree with him about the excellent work carried out by customs officers at


Dover and elsewhere in tackling drug trafficking. My hon. Friend can tell them categorically that we have no intention of legalising cannabis. We do not believe that it is the right way to proceed. As the chief constable of West Yorkshire said in the past,
Legalisation or decriminalisation just isn't the answer.
He continued:
"I've not yet met a heroin, or ecstasy or crack cocaine user that didn't start on cannabis".

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister tell us what he has repeatedly refused to deny, which is that the costs of rail privatisation—the costs of the sale and of the extra subsidy—are set to amount to $1 billion over the next two years? Would not that £1 billion be better spent on improving a public rail service?

The Prime Minister: No. Even with the spirit of Christmas, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. On a like for like basis, overall Government funding for the railways after privatisation is expected to be broadly similar to the levels of recent years. The precise level will depend on the privatisation process and on the outcome of competition for the franchises. Instead of criticising the funding, the Labour leader would be better employed examining the £10 billion worth of investment that Railtrack plans, which would not occur in the public sector. If the right hon. Gentleman is so opposed to privatisation, will he tell us how he would replace the £10 billion worth of investment in British Rail? Which taxes would he increase? By how much would fares have to rise? Or will he at last realise that privatisation will produce a better service for customers?

Mr. Blair: We could start by taking the £1 billion and investing it in the rail service. Let us see whether the Prime Minister can answer one simple question: will he guarantee that the level of service which now obtains will be the same after privatisation in the privatised services—not hope, not wish, but guarantee?

The Prime Minister: I note that the right hon. Gentleman had no response whatever to the £10 billion worth of investment. He talks about £1 billion, but £10 billion is promised. As for future services, he can see what is already beginning to happen. The passenger service requirements provide a guaranteed level of service. That has never existed in the past. Services to the passenger are already improving—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I will tell Opposition Members where. The operating companies are offering a range of new services. They are responding to their customers more quickly. There are new information services. To give Opposition Members a practical example, completely new train services are being provided—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where"?]. I will tell Opposition Members where. For example, over 100 trains a day have already been added to SouthWest Trains' timetables. When will the Leader of the Opposition realise what is happening and realise also the opportunities for improving a service that has been too bad for too long?

Mr. Blair: We shall realise it when the Prime Minister guarantees that service levels will remain the same—[Interruption.] Yes, when he guarantees it. What is more, have we not just—[Interruption.] We shall listen to the Government when they guarantee that the service will remain the same, but they are not prepared to do that. Is it not right that at the end of the week—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The barracking is intolerable.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister keeps telling us about his plans for British Rail. Is he not the man who planned no increase in value added tax and then increased it? We are not interested in his plans. Have not his rail plans been overturned by the courts, his chief inspector of prisons walked out of his first prison inspection, members of his party are at each other's throats over Europe and the Government cannot get the national lottery right? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's year ended as it began—in weakness, chaos and incompetence?

The Prime Minister: Whenever the right hon. Gentleman loses the argument, he changes it. He has lost the argument on privatisation. He had no response to the £10 billion and no response to the fact that there has never been a guaranteed minimum service until now. Now the service is being improved and he cannot bear the fact that we are winning the argument in terms of improving services right across the public sector. All that he can do is to run down everything that happens in this country on every conceivable occasion for his own partisan political interests.

Mr. Garnier: As more than 13,000 British troops are deployed to Yugoslavia, will my right hon. Friend send the best wishes of the House to them? Does he agree that, had the Labour party won the last election, we would not have had one tenth of the soldiers to send to that place, given the savage cuts that Labour would have introduced?

The Prime Minister: And would probably try to introduce were it ever given the chance again. We know the Opposition's record on defence and we know their capacity to hide their long-term affiliation to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and we know that the armed forces know and the people of this country know that the armed forces would not be safe in their hands.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister understand why the possibility of a lone British veto tomorrow against a European subvention to help to privatise Irish Steel is regarded by the Irish Prime Minister as inexplicable? Will he explain? Will he assure us, in particular, that he fully understands the damage that could be done by that to British-Irish relations at a crucial moment in the Irish peace process?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine the whole matter; it is a very complex issue involving the interests of Irish Steel—very important to Ireland—and British Steel, and the matter is under discussion. We are seeking—and I hope that it will be possible to reach—an agreement that safeguards the United Kingdom's interests. That matter is under discussion at the moment. It would not be productive for those discussions for me to pursue the matter now, but there is an interest both in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. We are seeking, and have done for some weeks, to reach an agreement which meets the interests of the steel industry both in the United Kingdom and in Ireland. I hope that we shall be able to reach such an agreement. If we cannot, it will not be for lack of trying on this side of the channel.

Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend seen the newspaper report that Labour Members of the European Parliament, in supporting the French strikers, blamed their plight on the fact that the French Government were supporting the single currency? Does he not find it surprising that Labour MEPs should be supporting his own sceptical point of view? Is he not even more surprised that their position differs radically from that of Opposition Front-Benchers, who support the European Parliament and all its works?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the very wide and deep divisions in the Labour party on Europe were clearly apparent in the statement that I delivered to the House yesterday afternoon, when one Labour Back Bencher after another stood up and, in essence, flatly contradicted what the leader of the Labour party has been saying for weeks. As for Labour party policy, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that there was more than one summit in Madrid last week. The summit of socialist leaders, attended by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy leader of the Labour party, must have been very amusing. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to a significant extension of qualified majority voting, support for a European strategy on immigration, the social chapter, and restrictions on how long people can work. What he did not discuss were the details of fishing policy—and he a Member from Hull.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 19 December. [4908]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Pickthall: As the national lottery regulator was warned by the Ministry not to take free air trips on his visit to the USA, but nevertheless did so, and given that the Secretary of State for National Heritage knew about that but refused to comment on it at Question Time yesterday, does the Prime Minister not think that it is time that both of them were sacked?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is considering the matter and will make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1979 only 30 per cent. of people in Scotland were home owners? Is he aware that the figure is now 57 per cent., and a Shelter report published today suggests that 77 per cent. of Scots aspire to home ownership? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Conservative party will drive towards that objective?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Surveys show that more than 70 per cent. of Scots aim for owner-occupation, and that is particularly true among younger age groups. Since the right to buy was introduced in 1980, well over 300,000 houses and flats have been sold to their tenants, and owner-occupation has increased from 35 per cent. to 57 per cent. The right to buy has been immensely successful—introduced by a Conservative Government, opposed by gut instinct by the Labour party then, and still, in truth, loathed by it now.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During last night's debate on the preposterous proposal to privatise the Stationery Office, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), was a little naughty—I put it charitably—in his statements about the Clerks Department, as can be seen in column 1317 of Hansard. Was that brought to your attention, Madam Speaker, and can you clarify the position of the Clerks Department, which by tradition is neutral and does not become involved in matters of political controversy?

Madam Speaker: There may still be misunderstanding in some quarters about the position of Officers of the House in the process leading to privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made clear yesterday, the House of Commons Commission has authorised Officers of the House to participate in the process of preparing the contract that would be necessary to protect the interests of the House after privatisation, and in that context to attend meetings of the privatisation steering group in an observer capacity.
The choice of the firm whose bid will be accepted is purely one for the Government. That said, Officers of the House will be available to give information to representatives of the Government about the special nature and the special implications of the work that the House requires, and will continue to require to be done by whoever is responsible for its printing services. That information may help the Government to make their choice, but neither the House nor any organ of it will make that choice.
As soon as any name of a firm that is to take over the functions of HMSO is announced, it will be for Officers of the House—acting on behalf of the House of Commons Commission—to negotiate the terms of an appropriate contract. Preparatory work for that eventuality is already under way. It will be for the Commission itself, at the end of the process, to approve the terms of any contract that is drawn up. I hope that I have made that abundantly clear.

BILL PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT (HOMEWORKERS)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Ms Roseanna Cunningham, presented a Bill to provide safeguards for homeworkers and for associated workers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 26 January and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

Fisheries

[Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 10409/95, on the annual report by the Commission on the multi-annual guidance programme, 10862/95 relating to guide prices for fishery products in 1996, the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 27th November 1995 relating to the EC/Morocco Fisheries Agreement, on 12th December 1995 relating to the Community observer scheme in North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO) waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to joint international inspection in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to control measures in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 on a pilot satellite tracking project in NAFO waters, on 12th December 1995 relating to Community catch possibilities in NAFO waters for 1996, on 12th December 1995 relating to reciprocal access and 1996 quotas with Norway, and on 12th December 1995 on amendments to the criteria for the decommissioning of fishing vessels.]

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
There is great pressure to speak in the debate, so I have imposed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches. I plead with Front Benchers to keep in mind the number of hon. Members who I know wish to speak.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum, submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 8th December 1995, relating to the fixing of total allowable catches for 1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished; and supports the Government's intention to negotiate the best possible fishing opportunities for British fishermen consistent with scientific advice and the need to sustain the stocks for the benefit of future generations of fishermen.
On Thursday the Fisheries Ministers of the European Union will meet to decide the 1996 quotas for fish stocks. Today's debate allows the House to consider these matters and to scrutinise the relevant documents, which are set out in the Order Paper. Already this year the House has had a number of debates on fisheries. Earlier in the year and again in October, it considered proposals for limiting fishing effort in waters west of the United Kingdom. More recently my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) succeeded in raising his concerns about the common fisheries policy in an Adjournment debate.
The main focus for today's debate are the proposals which the Council of Fisheries Ministers will consider later this week in Brussels to determine the fishing opportunities for the various fleets of the Community next year. I am delighted to have this opportunity to open the debate. As I made plain when I attended the meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers in October when the final critical decisions were taken on the arrangements for western waters, I attach great importance to the prospects for the industry which is so important to remote communities, not just in Scotland but around the whole coastline of the United Kingdom.
I was brought up in Arbroath on the north-east coast of Scotland and I well recall the vibrancy of the harbour and the fish market, and the community spirit that was encapsulated in the local fishing fleet. It is a great sadness to me personally to see how the industry has changed over the past 20 years. Looking back only 10 or 15 years, one


sees that the volume of the main white fish landings in the United Kingdom was little short of twice the volume that we can expect next year.
If there is to be a single measure of the success of the European common fisheries policy it should be the health of our fish stocks. On that, plainly, the jury is still out. Some 60 per cent. of those stocks are considered by the scientists to be at risk biologically. That means that the stocks are below or at about the lowest level which has been seen over the 30 years during which they have been subject to close scientific monitoring. That statistic tells its own story about the performance of the common fisheries policy.
Some hon. Members may argue that the state of the stocks is not as bad as the scientists advise. There may be some truth in that because fishery science is not an exact science. At the Council we shall certainly take into account the views of the fishermen in pressing for changes to the Commission's proposals, but I do not think that anyone can dispute the overall conclusion that our stocks are not in the same healthy state as they were 10 or 15 years ago.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fundamental problem with the common fisheries policy is the principle of equal access to the common resource? Does he agree that that works very much to the detriment of the British fishing industry? Will he assure the House that the Government will go to the intergovernmental conference next year determined to see this written out of the regulations? Will they serve notice now on our European partners that that is our bottom line?

Mr. Forsyth: I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I think his point is that the idea of equal access to a common resource is more of an aspiration than a reality. In practice the principle of relative stability, for example, has been contrary to that. I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister of State will fight hard for British interests at the Council meeting, as he has always done in the past.

Mr. Gill: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. I listened with interest to his answer but I should like to press him on the point. Will he serve notice now on our European partners that we will accept nothing less than a writing out of the fisheries regulations all the references to equal access to a common resource?

Mr. Forsyth: We have never had equal access and we have no intention of accepting that principle. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend to some degree.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way—he has been most courteous as usual. Is not the fundamental problem that fisheries policy is subject to qualified majority voting? For the British, who have maritime interests just like the Icelanders and Norwegians, of paramount national importance is the fact that land-locked countries such as Luxembourg and Austria, and Mediterranean countries too, can have a vote on our Atlantic fisheries, which is clearly preposterous.

Mr. Forsyth: I read with interest my hon. Friend's comments in the Adjournment debate that he secured some weeks ago. I can say to him only that there are,

of course, deficiencies in the common fisheries policy, but that, at the end of the day, we simply must find a means whereby we can meet the requirements to conserve stocks. Whatever the system, whether we are out of the CFP or not, we will have to proceed by negotiation and agreement. There is the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to achieve a good deal for Britain's fishermen. I am sure that he will take that opportunity when it comes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: While my right hon. Friend is giving way, it is probably helpful if he gets interventions out of the way at the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) talked about the intergovernmental conference. I do not think that anyone in the House finds the common fisheries policy satisfactory. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that the Government will consider putting the problems of that policy before the IGC?

Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure what my hon. Friend is seeking to get me to do. If he is suggesting that we should seek to amend the treaty, with his own knowledge of these matters, he will know how difficult that would be to achieve, and I will deal with that later. Of course, there is the opportunity by regulation—which, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, requires agreement by qualified majority voting—for us to achieve the forms and changes. I hope that I will take those opportunities, as will my hon. Friend the Minister of State as the negotiations proceed.
There is only one answer to our predicament: the need for more effective conservation. Fishing activity is the single biggest factor in deciding the fish mortality level. We must collectively face up to the need to reduce fishing's impact on fish stocks. The need to limit fishing activity's scope was recognised many years ago, long before the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community, and well before the common fisheries policy was agreed. In the 1960s, the establishment of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission brought together the countries in this part of the world to co-operate on fish stocks conservation. That commission, not the European Commission, brought together Fisheries Ministers, with the benefit of scientific advice, to decide total allowable catches for the main stocks of interest to the commercial fishing fleets.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: If the Secretary of State is not going to campaign for radical common fisheries policy reform by way, for example, of greater emphasis on regional and national management of local fisheries stocks, will he give the House an assurance that he will campaign for far tougher policing on fishing grounds? What discussions has he had recently with Norwegian authorities in terms of tougher policing, the doubling of fines, the confiscation of licences and the banning sine die of vessels caught fishing illegally?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we have effective enforcement. We are spending some £26 million on that and my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to improve our performance in that matter. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the scientific aspects of the matter, what will be done to induce Poland, Japan and Korea to become signatories to the United Nations conference on straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, an important resolution that we have agreed and that they have not?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is raising a slightly different issue from that which we are discussing this afternoon, but he makes a crucial point: the importance of international co-operation in dealing with fish stocks and of recognising in this debate that fish do not recognise international boundaries. Despite that fact, I am sure that—with your indulgence, Madam Speaker—my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address the hon. Gentleman's question when he winds up the debate.
The proposals that Fisheries Ministers—

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way, but for the last time.

Mr. Salmond: Many observers would accept the fact that Spain, from within the European Union, and Norway, negotiating from outside, seem to be remarkably more successful in achieving their fisheries objectives than are Her Majesty's Government. Can the Secretary of State explain why, and tell us what he intends to do about it?

Mr. Forsyth: As on so many subjects, such as the Scottish budget, I refute the hon. Gentleman's analysis. He lives in a world in which he believes what he wants to believe; he does not seem to take account of the facts.
The proposals—

Mr. Calum Macdonald: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I said that I was giving way for the last time, but as it is the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who wishes to intervene, I shall make an exception. But this really is the last time.

Mr. Macdonald: With regard to the imbalance in enforcement between Spain and the United Kingdom, why is it justifiable and acceptable to the British Government that Spain has only 12 fisheries officers to police its regime, whereas we have more than 200?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is not right about that.

Dr. Godman: He is.

Mr. Forsyth: He is not. The Spanish have been increasing the number of their fisheries officers—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many are there?"] However, I certainly share the hon. Gentleman's concern that that should be done, and my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I do not know what Opposition Members are shouting about. They were the first to come forward and argue for Spanish accession, and I do not recall any of them saying anything about fishing during those debates.
The proposals that Fisheries Ministers will consider this week—

Rev. Ian Paisley: If what the Secretary of State says is true, why does the European Community's own document inform us that the annual number of surveillance hours by Spain is 50, whereas for our country the figure is 4,800 hours?

Mr. Forsyth: Well—[Interruption.] Any advance on 50? I said that the numbers were increasing and I entirely agree about the importance of that development. Opposition Members' concern for the policing of fisheries interests is somewhat belated—I shall deal with that subject later.
The proposals that Fisheries Ministers will consider this week are, and have to be, based on the scientific advice received by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management. The United Kingdom plays a full part in contributing to that international scientific advice.
The advice that we received this year points to the need for major new restrictions on catches of herring and mackerel, and on the plaice fisheries in the North sea. The scientists have also advised that we should continue to restrict catches of the main round fish stocks—scod, haddock and whiting—throughout the seas around the United Kingdom.
The Commission has had to take account of that advice in developing its own proposals. For stocks that the Community manages jointly with Norway, there has been a series of bilateral negotiations, which were conducted toughly on both sides. The agreement reached in the early morning of 9 December provides for a two-year programme of phased cuts in the total allowable catch for herring, mackerel and plaice. The cuts in quota for those species next year will be about 30 per cent. The agreement also provides for broadly stable TACs for cod, haddock and saithe, but for a significant cut in the North sea whiting catch.

Mr. John Townend: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I said that I would not give way again. I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but this really must be the last time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Townend: I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend; he cannot be blamed for the betrayal of the British fishing industry by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). Does my right hon. Friend accept that the common fisheries policy, as based on the representations of the scientists, proves that the fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster?
If the system had worked, we would have seen quotas increasing year on year. But when it dictates that tens of thousands of good fish be discarded back into the sea to die, there is something wrong with it. Surely the final nail must be when the House legislates to protect the British fishing industry, and is then taken to court and asked to pay £30 million in damages. That is surely the end.

Mr. Forsyth: It is not within the power of this House to legislate to put more fish in the sea. Our basic problem is that we are having to deal with too many people chasing too few fish. I do not think that the sort of comments which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) add to the debate or get us further forward in seeking to address the difficult problems. Whether we were in the CFP or not, the issue of stocks would have to be addressed, and I hope that we can turn our attention to that matter this afternoon.


The other fishing opportunities which the Community has negotiated with third countries, such. as Iceland, the Faroes, Greenland, in the north-west Atlantic and north Norway offer our fishermen broadly the same opportunities as applied this year. Fisheries Ministers in the United Kingdom have maintained a close dialogue with the fishing industry throughout the run-up to the negotiations in the Council, and the Government will have regard to the advice that we have received from the industry.
We recognise that the cuts implied by the Commission's proposals entail sharp and large reductions in quotas and, in the short term, such swings must undermine confidence. We recognise that these cuts in quotas will have serious implications for fishermen's incomes, and all of us are sympathetic to their position. Some of the cuts will be offset by increases in prices, and that is apparent in the mackerel market at least.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be fighting hard to get the best deal possible for our fishermen, consistent with the need to protect the longer-term interests of the industry. I am also aware that hon. Members have a number of specific concerns on matters of particular interest to the fishermen in East Anglia, in the south-west of England and in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend will of course address these.
The Government share the values of the British fishermen. We respect their qualities of independence, enterprise and self-reliance. We believe in minimising the burden of regulation by the state, and allowing fishermen as much freedom as possible within the constraints necessary to conserve fish stocks. We demonstrated that only days ago when we withdrew the obligation on fishermen to report in as they crossed the 4 deg. west line in the north of Scotland.
I am well aware that many fishermen do not believe that they have been well served by the Community's common fisheries policy. Most of them recognise that the CFP has not been successful in conserving fish stocks. They point to the burden of regulation under which they now work. They do not believe that that burden is being applied fairly throughout the Community. They feel that their fishing rights are increasingly insecure because they believe that the CFP is founded on a principle of equal access by all Community fishermen to fish stocks throughout the Community waters. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made that point.
I understand fishermen's fears, but we should not underestimate our success in maintaining relative stability, in limiting access to our territorial waters and in applying effective controls on Spanish access and fishing efforts in western waters. These are successes which we have achieved within the Community, and which cut across the principle of equal access.
Those who argue that we could deal with these threats to the rights of our fishermen by abandoning the CFP need to consider carefully the practicalities and the costs of that course. I am sure that my hon. Friends who advocate this do not want the UK to act in breach of treaty obligations entered into with the approval of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes we do."] My hon. Friends are the first to argue for the rule of law.
Renegotiating the treaty to exclude fisheries from the scope of Community competence would be a monumental and probably impossible task. It would require unanimity

and ratification by all member states, and that could be bought only at a huge price. We cannot assume that we would be successful in such a high-risk strategy. Reforming the CFP only requires changes in regulations by qualified majority voting. We also need to recognise the practical needs of managing fish stocks that we share with our neighbours, which means that some sort of common fisheries policy will still be needed.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I have been generous in giving way, and Madam Speaker is keen that we make progress. I know that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) does not share the view of Opposition Front-Bench Members on these matters.
It would be far more realistic and effective to work for improvements within the CFP, and that is our strategy. Those who argue that we should seek to co-operate behind the barriers of 200-mile fisheries limits must have forgotten the lessons learnt painfully during the early years of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The common fisheries policy offers us a substantial improvement on the voluntary and ineffective system epitomised by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. Those who think that Norway offers us a model for managing our fisheries should study that model more closely before they assume that it could be easily or costlessly replicated here.
The fishing industry does not need bogus options. What is needed is the courage to face up to the real issues, and to recognise the practical realities and the real opportunities to improve the working of the common fisheries policy. That is why Fisheries Ministers have initiated a review of the CFP. This is a review not by the Commission, but by an independent British group. It has been drawn from the fishing industry, the processors, the scientists and the environmental interests. I understand that members of that independent group expect to report early next year. I look forward to seeing their findings, because there will be opportunities to carry forward changes to the CFP without waiting till the next major review, in 2002.
That is also why the Government have committed substantial sums—£53 million over five years—to decommissioning older fishing vessels, and reducing fishing capacity towards the targets which we have accepted in the multi-annual guidance programme. It is also why the Government have led the fight to resist the cumbersome and bureaucratic proposals that the Commission advances for fisheries management, most recently for regulating fishing efforts in western waters. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to talk about some of those initiatives and opportunities later in the debate.
Underpinning all that work is a fundamental need to ensure that the fishermen and their representatives are drawn more closely into the process of managing their fisheries. That is something to which Fisheries Ministers in the United Kingdom are firmly committed.
I despair of the Opposition amendments. This month the Liberals are suggesting that we advance the next review of the CFP. Only last month, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) saw no need for that in an Adjournment debate.

Mr. James Wallace: indicated dissent.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he said:
The common fisheries policy should comprise a host of other detailed matters. I welcome the review group and look forward with interest to the outcome. The year 2002 will come upon us sooner than we think, and we must begin to put in place the measures that we want to see by then."—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 585.]
As for Labour, whose members pose as the fishermen's friend, what has it understood about fisheries policy? Nothing that I can see in the amendment. What has it to contribute to the reform of the CFP? Does not it recall its acquiescence in the 1986 Iberian Treaty of Accession? The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said:
We welcome the accession of Spain and Portugal. It is the right move for the Community and for Spain and Portugal. We welcome it because we recognise the merits of those two new democracies joining the rest of Europe and facing Europe's problems with us.
He continued:
The Opposition do not welcome accession blindly, ignorantly or oblivious of the difficulties and anxieties."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 883.]
The Opposition seem all too keen to gainsay what the hon. Gentleman said then. That treaty provided for the special protection of the Irish box to end at the end of this year. If the Government had done nothing, the Spanish boats would have been free to enter the whole of the Irish box outside territorial waters. Do not the Opposition understand that the deal that we negotiated last year maintains some protection for these sensitive waters; that it maintains the exclusion of the Spanish from the North sea; that it caps Spanish fishing effort in the west at the levels provided for in their Act of Accession? There is no Spanish armada, and that is a measure of our success: not walking away from the CFP but improving it from within.
What of conservation? I do not recall much about that in the Labour party's last manifesto—(Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) knows that there was nothing in it. Nor was there anything in the manifesto for the European Parliament, or in Labour's actions when in office during the 1970s. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the time. I do not recall that he or his colleagues did much to assist the fishing industry then.
Of course we recognise the need for effective conservation. We have committed £53 million to decommissioning. We have pursued the difficult agenda of limiting fishing effort.
There is a difference between the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and the Opposition Front-Bench amendment. My hon. Friends are motivated by conviction and a passionate concern to ensure that the Government fight for British interests. I am prepared to accept that some Labour Members are similarly motivated; but the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition is in another league altogether. It seeks to criticise the Government for not getting a good enough deal for our fishermen, yet every time the Government put the UK's interests first and fight for them, Labour leaders are to be found lining up with their socialist friends on the continent to denounce Britain for standing alone. When the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and his colleagues

were in office, so afraid were they of standing up to our partners that they allowed Brussels to filch massive sums from the pockets of UK taxpayers. Only when Baroness Thatcher took office was a substantial rebate secured.
To be fair, a handful of Opposition Members could, in all sincerity, have put their names to the amendment—but they are not among those whose names appear on the Order Paper. The amendment has not been framed to keep the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on side—far from it. It is simply a squalid exercise in synthetic patriotism by those whose sole objective is to try to entice some of my hon. Friends to withhold their support from the Government, so that the Opposition can hasten the day when they obtain power to deliver these islands, lock, stock and barrel, to the forces of federalism.
It is nauseating to see the party which for decades has clothed itself in the red flag now seeking to wrap itself in the Union flag; whereas in reality Labour would sail under a white flag and be forced to abandon our fishermen to the party's vision of an ever more integrated Europe.
I am the first to acknowledge the degree of concern among my hon. Friends. I must tell them and the communities they represent that we understand their anxieties, and that we have fought, and will always fight, for their right to fish the waters around our shores—consistent with maintaining adequate fish stocks. My hon. Friends' determination will command respect among the fishing communities of Britain, but I appeal to them not to risk compromising that respect by associating themselves with a bunch of sell-out merchants whose earlier crimes have already resulted in a sentence of 16 years on the Opposition Benches. Nothing in their behaviour suggests that they deserve any remission; indeed an extension of the sentence would seem to be the only answer.
The Minister of State will speak for the United Kingdom's fishermen. He will fight for their interests and for those of the United Kingdom generally. Let this House send out the clearest signal that we are united in our determination not just to get the best deal on quotas but to achieve a long-term solution which offers this vital industry the security that it deserves.

Dr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the agreements of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, allowing Spanish fishing vessels into the Irish Box and allowing increased access for Spanish fishing vessels to the waters of the west of the United Kingdom, present an unacceptable threat to the long-term economic viability of fishing communities in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and place unsustainable pressure upon the fish stocks in these already sensitive waters; recognises the failure of the United Kingdom Government to implement a decommissioning policy until 1993, and notes that Ministers only abandoned their unfair, unpopular and unworkable days-at-sea proposal after the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations challenged the Government in the European Court of Justice; concludes that the United Kingdom Government has not effectively represented in Europe the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and has failed to implement in the United Kingdom a fisheries policy that is in the interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry; recognises that the over-riding priority of the Common Fisheries Policy must be the conservation of fish stocks, for only through healthy stocks can the fishing industry survive; believes that the Common Fisheries Policy in its present


form does not adequately meet this priority; and calls on the United Kingdom Government to work in Europe to secure reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy to ensure the conservation and fair allocation of fish stocks throughout the European Union, with effective enforcement by all member states.
The House will be aware that this is the major annual fisheries debate of the parliamentary year. It precedes the important December meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers, which is to agree total allowable catches, quotas and other changes to the workings of the common fisheries policy.
I welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland to our debate. I hope that there is nothing to be read into the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food left halfway through the Secretary of State's remarks. We shall assume that he had another engagement.
The Secretary of State referred to the 1992 Labour party manifesto. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who will wind up for the Opposition, may refer to the fisheries document we issued, but I do not think that we should spend much time arguing about the 1992 manifestos. [Interruption.] There is a difference between a Government who win on their manifesto, and a party that loses on its manifesto. [Interruption.] Perhaps Conservative Members do not know the constitutional position. Oppositions are not bound by their manifestos; Governments are.
The Conservative party manifesto for 1992 states:
We are determined to see that the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy protects the interest of UK fishermen and retains our share of the Community's fishing opportunities.
Who in the House believes that the Government have delivered on that? Not a single fisherman in the country does. I have spoken to fishermen's leaders from Plymouth to Lerwick today, and they support the amendment standing in the name of Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I do not believe that fishermen's federations, certainly in Scotland, support the Opposition's amendment, for one reason in particular. The debate is about total allowable catches. There is not one mention of them in the Opposition amendment. Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain that?

Dr. Strang: Yes, I will come to the issue of total allowable catches and quotas. I know that the Government would like the debate to be only about the quotas which are set every year, but it is not just about them. Everyone who knows about the protracted arguments and discussions that have taken place since the agreement last Christmas knows perfectly well that the arrangements which will come into force on 1 January 1996 are of crucial historic importance to our fishing industry, as I shall explain.
Right hon. and hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies will be well aware that the stocks in those waters are already under immense pressure and are crucial to our fishing industry. The priority must be to conserve our stocks. There should be less, not more, fishing effort in those areas.
As this is the right hon. Gentleman's first UK fisheries debate as Secretary of State for Scotland, may I draw his attention to the words of the then Minister of State, who is now Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on going into the negotiations in October 1993 on the question of additional Spanish access to the waters around our islands?
Far from saying that increased access and effort was inevitable, the hon. Gentleman said that Spanish and Portuguese fishing activities should be confined as closely as possible to their historic patterns, and that there should be no access to the Irish box. He was quite right. Access to those waters should have been based on historic fishing activity. The fact is that the deal was a reflection of the Government's failure to represent the UK national interest in Europe.
The Government had had since 1985, when the Spanish terms of accession were agreed, to secure support in Europe for a just deal. In the event, the then Minister of State was not able to persuade a single other member state to refrain from voting in favour of the deal. It is true that, under the Spanish accession treaty, it was necessary to renegotiate the Irish box by the end of 1995, but we did not have to make arrangements for additional Spanish access to other waters around the UK by that deadline. Under the accession treaty, those arrangements did not have to be in place until 2002.
Ministers have still not adequately explained why the Government accepted that additional Spanish access should be effective from 1996 as opposed to 2002— [Interruption.]

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Dr. Strang: I heard the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) make a sedentary intervention, but, as the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is on his feet, I shall give way to him.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not wish to be unkind, because I like the hon. Gentleman very much—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I mean that sincerely. As no British Government, irrespective of which party is in power, have the right now to make decisions of that sort and say what will happen with regard to Spanish access, would it not be wiser to try to help the fishing industry out of this absurd constitutional mess rather than engage in political games? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that no fishermen, whether in Scotland or England, will be happy seeing their politicians slinging mud at each other when there is little that any British Government can now do?

Dr. Strang: I do not accept that there is little that any British Government can do, and nor will the fishermen's leaders. However, the hon. Gentleman's point has some merit. I agree that the fishermen's leaders, and fishermen who are watching this debate, do not want to see mud slinging, and I do not intend to sling mud, but I must explain what has happened in recent years.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Dr. Strang: I shall give way for the last time.

Mr. Nicholls: How on earth can the hon. Gentleman expect the fishermen or anyone in the House to take seriously his suggestion that something radical should be done, when, during the five years that he was a Fisheries Minister, at a time when we were not crippled by qualified majority voting, he achieved precisely nothing?

Dr. Strang: I was never a Fisheries Minister, but I accept collective responsibility for all the decisions of that Government.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: What were you, then?

Dr. Strang: I shall tell the Minister where I was. I was in the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I do not want to spend much time discussing history, because, as the hon. Member for Southend, East rightly reminded the House, the fishermen are not looking for mud slinging. I remind the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that that Labour Government did not take the crucial decisions on the common fisheries policy. Indeed, previous Ministers of Agriculture have criticised the Labour Government for not settling. The House will understand that the settlement came after the Conservative party came to power.
I wish to be fair. The decisions implicit in our entry into the European Community under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) were important in relation to setting the stage for the common fisheries policy. But let us stick to the historical facts. The Government have not represented the interests of our fishing industry in Europe, and their record at home is just as bad.
In the past three years, four Ministers of Agriculture have each made their mark on our fishing industry without dealing with any of the problems facing the industry. First, the present Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), was the mastermind of the unfair, unpopular and unworkable tie-up regime. The Government's tie-up regime was so iniquitous that the High Court referred it to the European Court of Justice. So this year, we had the demeaning spectacle of the UK Government fighting the UK fishing industry in the European courts.
On 17 October, the Minister of State, who is in his place, finally announced that the Government would not, after all, implement the tie-up regime. We welcomed that announcement. The Secretary of State for the Environment also deprived our industry of a decommissioning scheme for many years while other industries in Europe had that option. Five years ago, he said:
decommissioning is not the way to reduce the pressure on fish stocks".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1171.]
The right hon. Gentleman was running scared, following the appalling mismanagement of the Government's previous scheme.
Finally, the Minister bowed to pressure—from the industry, from Members of Parliament representing fishing constituencies and from the official Opposition—and introduced a decommissioning scheme in 1993. Unfortunately, that scheme was so small that the Agriculture Select Committee concluded that the cuts achieved would
be more than offset by efficiency gains in the remainder of the fleet".
Then we had the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and her bright new dawn. She was going to listen to the industry. In July 1993, the Government invited the industry to submit conservation proposals for technical conservation measures. The industry co-operated, and submitted detailed proposals. Two and a half years later, not a word in response has been heard from the Government.
Then we had the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave). It was he who negotiated the deal on Spanish access—and abstained on it, and came back and told the House what a great deal it was.
To the right hon. Gentleman's credit, however, he made one commendable commitment. In January 1995, as hon. Members will recall, the Labour party forced a debate to condemn the deal on Spanish access. To prevent a Government defeat in the House of Commons, the right hon. Gentleman announced that £28 million would be added to the £25 million that had already been allocated for decommissioning.
Decommissioning is not a panacea. It has an important part to play in reducing fishing effort to help conserve our fish stocks, but surely the Secretary of State for Scotland and his ministerial colleagues understand that it is unacceptable that we should be decommissioning vessels to facilitate additional fishing opportunities in waters around the UK for the fishing industry of one of our European partners—in this case, Spain.
I guess that that additional money provided for decommissioning made the vote in the House of Commons on 18 January 1995 one of the most expensive votes that the Government have ever had in the House of Commons.
Of course, the Government give with one hand and take away with the other. Our new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), slipped into this year's Budget the announcement that the Government are to refuse to launch in England the European Union grant schemes for fisheries processing and marketing, port facilities and aquaculture production. The Minister also scrapped the national fishing harbour grant scheme.
That is the Government's record. They have imposed unfair and unworkable regulations on our fishing industry. They have failed effectively to represent the industry in Europe. The real problems and issues that have confronted our fishing industry for many years remain unaddressed by the Government.
One outstanding matter is an obligation to cut our fleet. Like all other EU member states, the UK must cut its fleet capacity under the multi-annual guidance programme. The present round began in 1992 and must be completed in 1996. As a result of the Government's past failures, we are expected to cut our fleet by 19 per cent. from 1991 levels by the end of next year.
The European Commission estimates that, by the end of last year, we had reduced our fleet by only 5 per cent. The latest figures show that, by the end of next year, we shall have reduced our fleet by about 10 per cent. in total.
That leaves 9 per cent. of the fleet that the Minister is supposed to get rid of between now and the end of 1996. I address my remarks to the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate, although I can understand that he has slipped back a row or two. Will the Minister describe to us the way in which he proposes to find the extra 9 per cent. fleet reductions? Is he just waiting for our fishermen to go bankrupt? I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister of State will set out what he expects the consequences to be if the Government fail to meet the UK's requirement under the multi-annual guidance programme.
It is becoming clear that the current common fisheries policy is fundamentally flawed. Its priority must be the


conservation of fish stocks, but that is not the priority. Across Europe, too many boats still chase too few fish—that is not controversial.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: rose—

Dr. Strang: I did say that I had given way for the last time, but I will give way to the hon. Lady, so that she can make an intervention rather than interrupt me from a sedentary position.

Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, where there is a common resource such as the fishing territory, there will always be exploitation? If he genuinely wants to prevent our fishing fleet from being cut still further, he should support the amendment tabled in my name and that of 17 of my colleagues. It calls for a 200-mile exclusive fishing zone around our coast where adequate, or to the median line, which would give our fishermen the equivalent of private territory in which to continue to ply their trade.

Dr. Strang: I think that the hon. Lady understands that the Opposition do not support the policy that I believe she espouses: withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, and possibly, withdrawal from the European Union itself. I should have thought that there was common ground on the subject of the additional Spanish access, and perhaps on other aspects of which I have been speaking this afternoon.
All member states have recognised the over-capacity, as has the UK fishing industry. As the Minister of State advised the House last month, nearly 60 per cent. of the main stocks in the waters we fish are at risk of biological collapse. The contentious issue is how to tackle the problem. The UK Government must take their share of the blame. Their recalcitrance over decommissioning, and the consequent failure to reduce pressure on stocks, will further hinder the chances of matching fishing effort to fish stocks.
Tonight we are debating proposals for next year's total allowable catches, which contain some heavy cuts which will be felt hard in various sectors of the UK fishing industry. There is particular concern at the effect of the cuts in North sea sole and plaice total allowable catches on our east coast industry. That is one problem that Ministers will face in the Fisheries Council later this week. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe will address those matters in greater detail. It is not enough for the fishing industry across Europe to be hit by short-term annual attempts to rectify a long-term and worsening problem.
The common fisheries policy needs to be reformed, to make conservation the priority. There is clearly a need for a review of quota management.

Mr. David Wilshire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: No, I will not.
The problem of discards has to be addressed; the need for conservation cannot be squared with the throwing back of dead fish. There is also a scientific aspect: total allowable catches and quotas should be based on scientific advice, and tempered by a political assessment of socio-economic needs. With that in mind, it makes no sense to cut the resources available to our scientists responsible for assessing the health of fish stocks.
As the fiasco over the Government's tie-up regime made clear, fisheries policy cannot be reformed in the face of united opposition from the fishing industry. As I have said before of the common fisheries policy, the priority of conservation is far too often overridden by the drive to eliminate any preferential treatment of the various national fleets. Fishing industries in all member states must have absolute confidence that the management of their fisheries is carried out in their interests. The Labour party has been arguing for some time that there is a powerful case for greater national control for each member state within the framework of a reformed common fisheries policy.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what he means by the phrase "the whole of national management"?

Dr. Strang: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is no prospect for reform of the common fisheries policy. I shall tell him what the phrase means, and in time I shall develop it further. It means that, in practice, we must move towards a system of management that is closer to our coastal waters and to our fishing communities. We suggest that that will mean greater involvement by national Governments. The hon. Gentleman may not understand what the phrase means, but the fishermen understand that we cannot go further down the same road.
The amendment is designed to advance the case of the fishing industry and the fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom. I appeal to all right hon. and hon. Members to support it.

Sir Edward Heath: Once again, the Government have devoted inadequate time to a debate on a very important subject. As a result, Madam Speaker, you are compelled to limit all speeches to 10 minutes until the wind-up. That gives those hon. Members who wish to do so little opportunity to discuss the subject seriously.
However, in my brief contribution I propose to deal with the abusive remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who ought to be ashamed of the way in which he degraded himself with his interruption. His comments follow the maniacal article by Christopher Booker, which appeared in yesterday's edition of the Daily Mail. The article's assertions are entirely false, and I shall deal with them now—although I shall have to go back in history further than other hon. Members have done so far in the debate.
Mr. Booker begins his article by referring to components of the "great fisheries disaster" of which he says:
the first, of course, being Sir Edward Heath, in 1972, signing away all the fish in Britain's waters as 'a common European resource'".
There is no truth whatever in that statement. The principle was laid down by Act of Parliament, as were all principles. However, the policies to be followed were not laid down, and there was no common fisheries policy at that time—nor was one being discussed. That did not occur until 1983—10 years after I left office and my Government left power.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: rose—

Sir Edward Heath: There is no time to allow interventions.
That is an entirely false statement about what happened at that time. Mr. Booker continues:
So secretively was this done (the House of Commons was kept in the dark) that Britain's desperate fishermen now openly accuse him of 'treason'".
I make two points in response to that. First, my actions were not secretive; I have a record in my own papers. The principle was published, and it was open for debate in the House. We debated our proposed entry into the Community day after day in both Houses of Parliament. Anybody who knew about the principle and who wished to discuss it had an opportunity to do so. As the records show, the issue was not discussed by anyone because no one regarded it as objectionable. Therefore, it is a lie to say that we were secretive and held back information from the House.
Mr. Booker refers to fishermen now openly accusing me of treason. I take that assertion with a grain of salt. I was born by a fishing port. On my way to school, I would watch the fishermen coming into port, and I would stop to talk to them. There were no fishermen after the war; that had all finished. I then spent 15 years ocean racing, and for most of that time I captained British teams. [Laughter] It is no laughing matter; I had close contact with fishermen at that time. We could owe our lives to fishermen in certain circumstance; we knew that, and we maintained good relations with them. I am not a traitor to my country, although the hon. Member for Bridlington may think I am.
The policy formulation followed. We retained the 12-mile rule: six miles entirely for us and six miles for other fishermen. Under the negotiations, the latter six miles were limited to fishermen who were already fishing in those waters. So the countries with fishermen already there could keep them there. It was a perfectly workable arrangement that everyone accepted.
At the time, it suited us to keep the six-mile rule for other countries because our fishermen were getting a large amount of their catch in Icelandic waters, not in local waters. The bitter war over Icelandic fishing when we were in Government led to the stretch of Iceland and the matter was finally dealt with in 1976—after we left office—by the Hague agreement in which the stretch was extended to 200 miles for every country.
Now we are hearing glib suggestions that we should all go back to a 200-mile limit. Anyone can see that it is not workable today, as any fisherman will agree. The waters covering the European Union, the Mediterranean and the North sea overlap to such a large extent that we have to have an arrangement and the way to reach an arrange is through the European Union. That is what we are doing. The Government are quite right to pursue that endeavour and it can be achieved successfully.
The other argument concerns the amount of fishing that is possible. Any dispute between fishermen and those responsible should be sorted out by mutual discussion. The scientific adviser says that there ought to be some limitation. I heard fishermen say on television yesterday that there are masses of fish wherever they go. That can be sorted out without having an open row and suggestions that the fisheries policy should be abandoned. It is so unnecessary.
After the Hague agreement in 1976, the first common fisheries policy was established in 1983 and has continued. People talk about the losses experienced by our fishermen as a result of the Government policy in 1970-73, but I have the figures that show the changes.
In 1970, the total catch by British vessels was 963,000 tonnes; in 1971 it was 964,000 tonnes; in 1972 it was 942,000 tonnes; in 1973 it was 998,000 tonnes and in 1974 it was 954,000 tonnes. Those figures are very similar and my Government were responsible for that power. It is why the article is false and the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington were abusive and I strongly object to them.
When we listen to the views of some of my hon. Friends today, we should note that there is a complete difference between the fishermen and the Euro-sceptics. Earlier today, a spokesman for the fishermen said that they wanted nothing whatever to do with Euro-sceptics. The fishermen value the European Union, and want a satisfactory arrangement within the European Union. The last thing they want to do is damage it.

Sir Richard Body: My right hon. Friend has been speaking to the Spanish fishermen.

Sir Edward Heath: I quite realise that some of my hon. Friends want to damage it. They can laugh all over their faces, because they do not have to think responsibly about the effect on other people.
I want to say something to my hon. Friends who represent the fishing industry. There is an important vote tonight. It may be quite important, not because it will change the position, but because of its political effect on the Conservative party. That is quite plain.
Of course my hon. Friends must take notice of the fishermen in their constituencies, but I also remind them of the remark by Burke so many centuries ago that is often repeated in the House. The purpose and responsibility of a representative is to look after the interests of his constituents, but he must also consider the interests of the country and the community. That is the basis of our work here.
Every hon. Member owes his constituents not only his energy "but his judgment". Those were Burke's words. We can offer our fishermen our energy, but my hon. Friends have to make a judgment tonight as to whether it is an event and a matter that justifies their defeating the Government. That is the crucial question to be answered. I do not think that many of our constituents, other than fishermen, would agree with that course of action. Indeed, I do not think that fishermen want to destroy the Government. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to give careful thought to what they will do at the end of the debate.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister said that the key element is conservation, the key problem being too many boats and too many fishermen chasing too few fish. There is agreement on both sides of the House about the importance of conservation, and the key to successful conservation is enforcement.
If there is to be successful enforcement, there must be the perception of a level playing field, as it were, on which all the Community's fishing fleets operate. That is


not the current perception. British fishermen feel that they are bearing the brunt of enforcement in achieving conservation. They feel that other fleets and other fishermen are escaping their fair share of responsibility. As a result, there is growing demand for withdrawal from the common fisheries rather than reform. I agree that withdrawal from the CFP is not practicable. It is not possible without withdrawal from the European Union. It is not, therefore, a serious option to be considered. But no one should underestimate the anger that is felt in fishing communities and which leads them to opt for withdrawal.
The Minister seemed to be asking for details to flesh out a package of reform. Most importantly, we need allies. It is striking that the Government seem to be isolated on fisheries policy year after year. They seem to be consistently outvoted when they argue their case with the other fisheries Ministers. It is not difficult to understand why the Government are consistently isolated. They are out of step on almost every other issue within the European Community. For example, they are out of step on the social chapter. As we have seen over the past couple of days, they are out of step on economic and monetary union. They are out of step also in discussions on foreign and security policies and moving them forward. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the Government find themselves isolated on fisheries policy and unable to acquire the allies that are necessary if we are to defend British interests and obtain a fair deal for British fishermen.
The secretary of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association, which covers the Western Isles fleet, visited Madrid last week with a BBC television crew. He went to the big fish market there and found small, immature fish openly available for sale. He saw juvenile fish that should not have been landed. They should not have been for sale in any EU state. Apparently he saw hake only 4 in long. Whatever rules and regulations we write, they will mean nothing unless there is fair enforcement overall. If they mean nothing, the confidence of our fishing community will be undermined and eroded. As I said to the Secretary of State, the latest figures that I have show that there are only 12 fisheries officers in the whole of Spain.

Mr. Baldry: rose—

Mr. Macdonald: Perhaps the Minister has the latest figures.

Mr. Baldry: In fact, there are 30 fisheries inspectors working for the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture; in addition, some 240 fisheries inspectors work for the autonomous Spanish regions, and 300 civil guard personnel devote part of their duties to fisheries enforcement work. Spain has 31 patrol vessels of the Spanish naval marine unit. Some 106 vessels are operated by regional Governments and the marine civil guard—all on fisheries protection work—and there are six aerial surveillance helicopters, so that is quite a substantial input by the Spanish Government in enforcing their fisheries regulations.

Mr. Macdonald: In that case, how can such a vast force fail to notice four-inch long fish being sold in the main market of the capital city of Spain? The Minister cannot simply recite figures and say that the number of fisheries officers in Spain has increased from 14 to 30,

compared with 200 in the UK, without also acknowledging that there is a real problem: the perceived lack of a level playing field, whereby British fishermen have to work within the rules, because of the very tight and efficient enforcement of the rules in the United Kingdom, while Spanish fishermen get away with landing juvenile fish and breaking the rules time and again. That reality underlies the fear in relation to Spanish access. The Minister must address that point, and he must get allies—this is the key point—in the Council of Fisheries Ministers to help him to do that if he is to satisfy British fishermen.
Another aspect which plagues, troubles and depresses British fishermen is the existence of the Spanish flagships, which are counted against the British register, and their impact on the whole decommissioning process. Some 28 per cent. of the UK-registered fleet of more than 10 metres are now Spanish owned; they are crewed by Spaniards and land their catches in Spain. That exceeds the amount by which Britain is supposed to reduce its overall fleet to meet the EC guidelines. The UK is required to decommission 19 per cent. to meet EC targets. Unless we do that, our fishermen cannot get any aid to help to rebuild and renew their fleet. Yet the Spanish-flagged element counting against the British fleet is far in excess of what we have to decommission.
Worse than that, hardly any of the Spanish-flagged vessels are decommissioning. They make a massive contribution to our perceived overcapacity and yet make no contribution whatever to the solution of decommissioning. Where is the level playing field? A disaster is looming, of which the Minister must be aware. If it is not causing him sleepless nights, we fear for the future of the British fishing industry. If the decommissioning target of 19 per cent. is met exclusively by the real British boats within the British fleet, by the end of the decommissioning process, almost half the British-registered fleet will be Spanish owned. I fear what the reaction in British fishing communities will be if that were to happen.
I ask the Minister, when he replies, to address himself specifically to that question, because those vessels are making a mockery of the common fisheries policy, the British Government and their protections. It is still going on. Spanish boats are still being added against the British register. I appreciate that the British Government tried to find a solution. They were warned at the time that it would fail and it did, because it went against EC guidelines. It is vital that the British Government address that problem and find a solution. I suggest that one possible solution would be to have a real linkage between boats that are registered in Britain and which have to operate economically in Britain—that is, establish some kind of economic linkage. For example, boats would have to make a proportion of their landings, say three quarters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Mr. David Harris: I sometimes think back with nostalgia to the rather cosy debates that we used to have a number of years ago, when only Members who represented fishing industries, like myself, took part. On the other hand, I warmly welcome the wider focus now given to the fishing industry, because we will begin to find a solution to the plight—that is the only word to


describe it—of our fishermen and the difficulties that they face only through the concern of many hon. Members or, indeed, people in the country.
I do not suppose that there has ever been a debate on this subject in the history of the House in which a former Prime Minister has spoken, and I very much welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) has done so. I shall say a few words about his concluding remarks, because for all I know, they may have been aimed at me or, indeed, my colleagues who have the honour to represent fishing communities, and he was right to point out the precise dilemma that we face.
I do not want to vote against my Government tonight. I do not want to see my Government defeated. That would not be in the interests of my country or of the fishing industry. However, it is incumbent on people like myself to speak up for the industry and to fight for it, and in my years in the House that is what I have sought to do. One television interviewer said tonight, "Surely you want to be popular with your fishermen." I would like to be popular, but if one goes into politics one cannot always be popular, and at the end of the day one has to do what is right. What makes me despair is what has happened in recent years to our fishing industry and to the fishing industries of other countries.
That brings me to the amendment tabled by a number of my hon. Friends who are usually known as "Euro-sceptics". I welcome their interest in the fishing industry because it focuses attention on the difficulties of that industry. Having said that, I think that their amendment is misguided, particularly in the context of today's debate, because what the debate should be about is, of course, what will be before the Fisheries Ministers when they meet in Brussels on Thursday and Friday in relation to the setting of quotas for the coming year. That will affect in the immediate term the livelihood of fishermen in my constituency, because some pretty massive cuts are proposed for individual quotas and total allowable catches.
I refer to one of the reductions that the Commission proposes on species that are of direct concern to the fishermen of the south-west of England, and Cornwall in particular. I will not go into the precise details, but in the English channel a reduction of 41 per cent. is proposed for the allowable catch of sole. In the Bristol channel, a reduction of 27 per cent. is proposed. For plaice, a reduction of 34 per cent. is proposed. Those reductions follow on from reductions in previous years. What we are seeing, therefore, is cheating on a massive scale, because fishermen have to cheat to survive. They do not do it willingly; they loathe cheating, but that is the system that we now have. The problem is, what on earth can we do to change that system?
In their amendment, the Liberal Democrats ask for the review of the common fisheries policy to be brought forward. That may sound attractive, but unless the voting system is altered there will be a repetition of what happened on 23 December last year, when the United Kingdom was outvoted and the rest of the Community voted—under qualified majority voting—to allow 40 Spanish boats to fish in the waters of the former Irish box, where stocks were already under pressure. Where is the conservation in that? My friend—I regard him as my

friend—the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Liberal Democrats' agriculture and fisheries spokesman, is a sensible man. His party wants to abolish the veto altogether. I want to restore it, however, for the purposes of the review of the CFP.
For the past three days, people have been asking me, "How are you going to vote?" I am not sure how we are going to vote. I must face up to the dilemma posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup: the balance between what I regard as in the national interest—maintaining the Government—against the importance of speaking up for the fishermen in my constituency. I make no secret of the fact that, together with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks)—who, I am sure, shares my views entirely—and my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I have spent a good deal of time talking to Ministers. We have presented them with a number of proposals, in particular on the central issue that should be debated here tonight—the reductions in quotas. I have received certain assurances, which I value very much, on what I believe will be the negotiating position of Her Majesty's Government when the Fisheries Council meets at the end of the week. I am fairly confident that, just before Christmas, we shall not be faced with reductions such as those that I mentioned earlier.
In my amendment—which, of course, has not been selected—I have asked my hon. Friends in the Government to negotiate changes upwards in the case of quotas which are not based on hard scientific evidence. The fishermen's organisations reckon that there is scope for that. I accept that in some instances cuts will have to be made, because the scientific evidence points irrefutably in that direction. I accept the conservation argument.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned fairness, and that is at the root of the fishermen's anger: they do not think that the system is fair. Let me give an example. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present. In the wake of the Budget, the Ministry decided to abolish harbour grants in England, but not in Scotland nor, I believe, in Wales. That is not fair.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. I have listened carefully to colleagues' views over the past few days, and my hon. Friend—along with my hon. Friends the Members for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for South-East Cornwall, for Falmouth and Camborne and for Wyre (Mr. Mans)—has made the importance of the harbour, marketing and processing grants to local fishing industry. I see the force of their case, especially their arguments that expectations had been raised about the giving of those grants earlier in the year. In the light of their representations, we have decided to reinstate the grants.

Mr. Harris: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. The decision will be particularly welcome in Newlyn, where an application of long standing was being rejected because of the cuts.
All hon. Members on both sides of the House must find a way forward so that we can restore real confidence to the fishing industry. I wish that we could put aside party politics, and politics involving the future of Europe, and concentrate on achieving a solution. That is what our fishermen need and deserve.

Mr. James Wallace: I share many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), whom it is my privilege and pleasure to follow in so many fisheries debates.
This debate has attracted a wider audience than usual. Despite all the media speculation, we would do the fishing industry a gross disservice if we did not spend some time focusing on issues of particular interest to that industry at the Council meeting that will take place on Thursday and Friday this week. As the hon. Member for St. Ives pointed out, there are to be considerable reductions in total allowable catches of a range of species, and that will have serious consequences for the industry as it plans for 1996 and the future.
As has been said, there is growing concern—there has always been concern, but it seems to be increasing annually—about the scientific basis on which some of the TACs are decided. Only a few years ago, the fishing industry was being told that the North sea whiting was a predatory fish, and that it would therefore be helpful to catch as many as possible. Dangled before the industry was the possibility of smaller mesh sizes and lower minimum landing sizes—which, in fairness to it, it resisted. In 1990, the TAC for whiting was 135,000 tonnes; although the fishermen were told to fish as much whiting as they could, the TAC has now been reduced to 67,000 tonnes. There is something wrong with that.
The Minister will be aware that the Scottish industry in particular would like the Hague preference to be invoked in respect of North sea whiting. Is that on the Government's agenda for Thursday's negotiations?

Mr. Baldry: Yes.

Mr. Wallace: I welcome that news. Let me add that, when the Hague preference has been invoked in the past, there has been a tendency to average it out rather than bringing it up to the full amount; the industry will be looking for the full amount.
Western mackerel is an important species in my constituency. In terms of quota allocation, tonnage and horsepower, 30 per cent. of the United Kingdom's pelagic fleet is based in Shetland, but what has happened to the TACs for western mackerel? In 1992, they were increased by 15 per cent., in 1993 by 10 per cent. and in 1994 by eight per cent. On the basis of those growing TACs, over the past two or three years and into next year, constituents of mine will have invested some £50 million in new vessels. That is an important business decision.
If a Japanese company had invested that amount in microchips, no doubt there would have been a press conference at the Scottish Office, with the Secretary of State cutting the first sod for the factory. It is a substantial investment, which has been made on the basis of what were originally growing TACs. However, they were reduced by 20 per cent. this year, and it is predicted that they will be reduced by 33 per cent. next year. That is no long-term basis for stability on which the industry can make serious investments.
It appears that this year Norway has gone forward by the lowest common denominator, on the basis that it sees opportunities in the Atlanto-Scandian herring negotiations. If he has time, will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom—the European Union, indeed, but

with the United Kingdom receiving a share—will seek a share-out of the winter herring, now known as the Atlanto-Scandian herring, in the waters to the north of Shetland? A premature allocation would be regrettable; it would be better if UK vessels were allowed to fish the stock as they have in the past.
We may well find that a substantial part of that stock can be caught in European Union waters, which would entitle the European Union and, in turn, the United Kingdom to a substantial share in the future. That would help to offset some of the disappointments and lost fishing opportunities that have resulted from the cuts in mackerel and herring TACs.
The hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned plaice. The reduction in plaice TACs has had a serious effect on the east coast, and there has been a knock-on effect because of the fewer opportunities for swaps. That applies not only to the east coast, but all around the channel ports and into the south-west. Those in the south-west fear that, if opportunities in regard to quota stocks of Bristol channel and North sea plaice are cut, many of the non-quota stocks fished by fishermen in the south-west will be under ever greater pressure. It is important to take that dimension into account.
I could go into many details, but I shall deal finally with the west coast nephrops precautionary total allowable catch, which was originally set at 16,000 tonnes. That TAC was based on very little scientific evidence. My understanding is that the scientists do not know when prawns spawn or how long they live: it is an inadequate science. Over the years the TAC was reduced to 12,600 tonnes on no more detailed or sophisticated scientific evidence than that for some time that was what was being landed. It appears that that amount was fished out early this year and it is thought that returning to 16,000 tonnes, which was satisfactory in the past, would give adequate fishing opportunity to those who fish the west coast nephrops. I ask the Minister to consider that in his negotiations later this week.
Underlying all these problems is the unsatisfactory nature of the TAC arrangements. There is no proper mechanism to channel into the decision-making process the fishermen's experience of stocks and the change in behaviour. I understand that there were substantial quantities of cod in the Humber in the latter part of this year when boats were tied up and the fishermen could not go after it.
In the 1992 changes to the common fisheries policy there is reference to a scientific, technical and economic committee. But economic and social consequences seldom seem to be taken into account. As I have said, the roller-coaster approach is damaging not just the catching sector but the processing and marketing sectors. If we could take forward the multi-annual strategic approach that was agreed in 1992 it would encourage scientists to look to the longer term when considering TACs and not base their conclusions on just one year's findings. That could lead to greater stability in the industry.
I reject the idea that a 200-mile limit within which Britain would have complete sovereignty would be a solution to our problems. As I said in the debate on 22 November, a 200-mile limit off Canada has not stopped the collapse of the cod industry on the Atlantic seaboard nor has it stopped the overfishing of pollock on the Russian pacific coast. A limit is no panacea.


I regret, although it is no reflection on the Chair, that we cannot vote on the amendment that was tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and his hon. Friends because it would have been bombed out of court. By a long way there is no majority in the House for Britain to renege on its international obligations and withdraw from the common fisheries policy. The policy requires a thoroughgoing reform along the lines that I suggested in the debate on 22 November, and there must be proper enforcement.
During the Secretary of State's speech the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) intervened and spoke about the hours of enforcement. That was one of the most telling points in the debate because if the fisheries policy is common its enforcement must be common as well. That has been missing and the fishermen perceive gross injustice and unfairness. We need to address that as efficiently, effectively and vigorously as possible.
My hon. Friends and I will vote against the Government. There are a good number of reasons for doing that and many of them have been set out in the amendment. The Government had a late conversion on decommissioning although hon. Members in all parts of the House mentioned it time and again in fisheries debates. European taxpayers' money is funding the modernisation of the Spanish fishing fleet, but we are not allowed to have access to funds to modernise the British fishing fleet. The days-at-sea legislation had a damaging effect and it was abandoned only after recourse to the European Court of Justice.
I went through the Division lists and it would be interesting for other hon. Members to do that to see how many of the 17 hon. Members who signed one of the amendments on the Order Paper voted in favour of restrictions on the amount of time that fishermen could spend at sea. There is also the whole question of Spanish access and the issue of a secret deal. The Secretary of State referred again to the fact that the House agreed to Spanish and Portuguese accession in 1986, but he failed to mention that the terms of that agreement were secretly changed. The House has never been properly told why that happened. The fact that there was no support for Britain last year on the detail of Spanish access shows how we have lost friends, and that in turn damages our ability to support our fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that from outside the Community Norway seems to have a better deal for its fishermen. Within the Community, Spain seems to do well for its fishermen. The Government invite the House to back them and say that they will support the best interests of British fishermen, but many of us long ago gave up on the Government knowing what are the best interests of British fishermen.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There is no doubt that the dictated common fisheries policy is driving the fishing community in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the United Kingdom into severe decline. Fishing in Northern Ireland is worth more than £20 million a year and offers employment to more than 2,000 people, 1,200 of whom are actively engaged on trawlers. It is an

important industry but every year it receives further body blows that are forcing fishermen out of the industry altogether.
The main concern of Ulster fishermen is the allocation of quotas in the Irish sea. In past years Northern Ireland's fishermen have witnessed those allocations being greatly reduced. For instance, since 1990 the total allowable catch in the Irish sea has been reduced by 40 per cent. The whiting allocation has been cut by 44 per cent. and the TAC for prawns, which are the foundation of the Ulster fleet, has been cut by 25 per cent. Government policies in alliance with the European Union mean that Northern Ireland fishermen cannot build vessels that are capable of fishing the deep waters to the west of Ireland and Scotland. It is ridiculous that Northern Ireland fishermen have to sit idly by while fishermen from other parts of the European Union are able to exploit those resources.
The strong feeling among many fishermen is that they are forced into quotas which bear no relation to the fish that are to be found in the fishing grounds. On top of that, the depleted quotas are further hit by the detrimental effect of the Hague preference on United Kingdom allocations. That preference, which is part of the common fisheries policy, awards fishermen in the Irish Republic extra fish at the expense of their northern colleagues.
In 1995 British fishermen in the Irish sea lost 805 tonnes of cod to the Irish Republic, which annually fails to catch its own allocation. That example is repeated in other stocks. Consequently, the United Kingdom has to swap away some of its other quota allocations so as to regain some of the fish without which vessels would be tied up at the quays. Despite the return of cod quota British fishermen are still 290 tonnes short of the previous year's allocation of Irish sea cod. The Hague preference along with drastic quota cuts mean that Ulster's fishermen are being driven from their traditional fishing grounds.
A major factor complicating matters this year is the uncertainty surrounding the future of international swaps. It is important that those swaps should proceed because by means of them fishermen are at least able to gain access to a quota that would not otherwise be available. The nettle of the iniquitous Hague preference system, which acts to the detriment of Northern Ireland fishermen, must be grasped. Additionally, we have the prospect, from 1 January next year, of the entry of up to 40 Spanish fishing vessels into the Irish box, while restrictions are placed on people who have fished in the Irish box for generations. Spanish fishing vessels, renowned for disregarding fishing controls and regulations, are being allowed in.
In relation to 1996 total allowable catches and quotas, it is the same depressing story of more cuts. Something needs to be done about the haddock TAC for the Irish sea. The ridiculously small quota allocated for haddock means that fishermen are not able to take advantage of the tremendous haddock fishery. There is a proposal to have further cuts in cod to the tune of 6.9 per cent. Cuts are also proposed for plaice and sole. Those are unacceptable to Ulster fishermen.
Although Northern Ireland and United Kingdom fishermen are having quotas cut and are being rigidly regulated and policed by the authorities under European Union regulations, the same cannot be said of other EU countries, which makes fishermen very angry. A recent comparison of member state enforcement resources,


undertaken by the EU itself, showed that the United Kingdom was devoting far more resources than any other member to enforce the fishing regulations.
I refer to a paper issued by the EU on the European Commission's estimate of existing resources and their utilisation. I find that, annually, Belgium puts in 15 surveillance hours, Denmark none, Germany none, Spain 50, France 500, Ireland 700, the Netherlands none, Portugal 100 and our own nation 4,800. Those are not my figures, but EU figures. That must alarm everyone in the fishing industry. It is a pity that there are not a few Nelsons back in the fishing industry to put a telescope to a blind eye and to let the fishermen get a proper quota. We are told that we should not say those things, but if the law is unfair, it must be dealt with, and this law is unfair. No wonder our fishermen are angry and frustrated, not only at the EU laws that have created the framework for their industry's destruction, but at the zeal with which these regulations are policed by our own authorities.
On a separate, but not entirely unrelated, issue, 1995 saw the European Court judgment on the fishing industry's judicial review of Her Majesty's Government's proposed days-at-sea legislation. Although the court's decision came down on the Government's side, it was clear to many people that the industry won a moral victory through the withdrawal of the proposals. The industry. however, incurred the legal costs. Why will not the Government say that they will not demand that money from the fishing industry? Today, one concession has been given. That on the legal costs would be a good concession to give to the fishing industry.
That is another difficult burden for the industry to bear at a time when it is coming under increasing pressure. The Minister should consider waiving the Ministry's legal costs associated with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations' legal challenge to the Government on this issue. It is all right for a former Prime Minister to tell us that all fishermen are for the European Community. He should come on some of the ships that I have been on and he would hear a different story altogether. Many fishing industry members are outraged at what is happening. I agree with a colleague sitting along this Bench, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). As we have handed away power after power to Europe, we are not now going to be in a position to remedy this situation.

Mr. Alex Salmond: In the course of a largely knockabout speech, the Secretary of State for Scotland aimed a sideswipe at the Euro-sceptics by saying that much of their interest in the fish industry was "belated"—I think that was the word he used. Of course that is correct—it is belated. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) for answering the question asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and pointing out that, of the 17 hon. Members on the Euro-sceptic amendment this evening, 13 voted with the Government on fishing industry tie-ups on 9 December 1992.
Many of us, including the Secretary of State, may not have records that we would like to remember in relation to the fishing industry. I remember a debate in 1991 on tie-ups, when, as a junior Scottish Office Minister, he sat with his feet on that Dispatch Box, sniggering, while

many of us tried to argue a case about fishing safety and safety at sea in the fishing industry. Unfortunately for him, that debate has not been forgotten around the communities of Scotland.
There has been some entertainment this evening for those of us who have observed the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food touring the Back Benches, speaking to the potential rebels in the vote tonight. Now we know that the inducement that is being offered is to restore the financial instrument for fisheries guidance, which was cancelled only last month in England. I am not sure whether the fishing harbour grant scheme, which was cancelled last month in both Scotland and England, is to be restored as well, but the night is still young.
My advice to the potential rebels on the Tory Back Benches tonight is, "For goodness' sake, do not be bought cheaply, as so many of your predecessors have been in fishing debates." I remember a previous Minister of Agriculture standing at that Dispatch Box, saying that he gave his word to the House that under no circumstances would the regulations elsewhere in Europe be any different from those pertaining on United Kingdom fishermen. How many of us believe that that commitment has been kept and honoured in the past few years?
Therefore, my advice to Conservative Members thinking of rebellion is, "Watch your votes," because what is said in honeyed words now might be different from what is said once the danger of the vote has passed.
I want to ask the Minister three specific questions, and I hope that he will deal with them in summing up. Earlier, in an intervention, I made the point that it seemed evident that Spain, from within the common fisheries policy, and Norway from outwith the CFP, have secured a better deal for their fishermen than the UK has in the past few years.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), reminded us of the Hague preference, which is another example that is worth remembering. That preference, which has been so useful to our fishermen, was achieved because of the intervention of Garrett Fitzgerald when he was Irish Foreign Minister in 1976. It was the Irish who secured the Hague preference, which has been so useful to fishermen north of Bridlington in the past few years. Substantial evidence exists, therefore, of the point that was made earlier in the debate.
One reason why the Norwegians have been dictating the pace of the negotiations is that they, in relation to the pelagic side, have the comfort of the new 1 million tonne revived stock of Atlanto-Scandian herring. I want to ask the specific question: as that is an international stock, what percentage of it does the Minister believe the UK and the Scottish pelagic fleet will be entitled to when it comes back on stream in the coming year?

Mr. Baldry: On the part of the stock that is in international waters, those negotiations will start in the new year, and obviously, we will seek to obtain the largest possible quota for the UK industry—it is as straightforward and as simple as that. One must remember, however, that a sizeable part of that stock is in Norwegian waters.

Mr. Salmond: I will take that as an indication that the Minister appreciates the importance of that stock in a circumstance where the pelagic fleet will face tough times as a result of the Norwegian negotiations.


The second precise point is on cod and haddock. From scientific evidence, it seemed to fishermen representatives that there was room for an increase in cod and haddock total allowable catches, but the TAC was restricted for cod, and there has been no increase for haddock. There is an important point here. Many of us believe that a relaxation in the TACs would result in fewer fish being caught and being discarded. Will the Minister return to that point, given that the scientific evidence does not seem to support the tough stance that the Norwegians successfully forced on the European Commission two weeks ago?
Thirdly, I want to emphasise the point about whiting made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is impossible to fathom the Commission's thinking on the whiting stock. A few years ago, it was defined as a predatory species that had to be fished down, and the minimum landing size had to -be reduced so as to cut its numbers, so why is its TAC now being sharply reduced? Does the Minister intend to invoke the Hague preference to try to ensure that there will be at least some fishing opportunities in the coming year for that important stock for the Scottish industry?
I am greatly concerned about structural support for the fishing industry. In a memorable phrase, Cecil Finn of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation said that the industry was
still wallowing in the broken water of the do nothing years".
He was talking about the years between 1987 and 1993, when—because of the obduracy of the then Minister of Agriculture, who set his face against decommissioning schemes because of his personal experience as a Minister in previous years—although the United Kingdom industry had 12 to 15 per cent. of the overall European fleet, it received only about 2 per cent. of the structural funding.
That put our industry and our communities at a huge competitive disadvantage. It now looks as though, in both objective 1 areas, and certainly in my area of Grampian, the PESCA scheme, which was introduced to try to compensate fishing-dependent communities for the effects of the difficulties that the industry has faced over the past few years, is also being jeopardised. That is happening because of the Scottish Office's refusal to allow local authorities the additional cash required to qualify for European funding. I hope that the Minister will pick up that point, too, in his summing up.
My third key point about structural support is that it would be helpful to clarify whether the harbour scheme is back on for this year. That was not clear from the exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening, because the rest of the House heard, and clearly understood, that I have heard and carefully considered the representations by some of my hon. Friends, and that the harbour scheme has been reinstated.

Mr. Salmond: For Scotland too?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Salmond: Just a nod will do.

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, I shall happily answer the question.

Mr. Salmond: indicated assent.

Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish position was that we did not follow the English on FIFG—the financial instrument of fisheries grant. But yes, the harbour scheme will be open.

Mr. Salmond: We know about the FIFG. That is why I asked about the harbour scheme, and I thank the Minister for confirming the position there.
The question marks over structural support at this difficult time for the fishing industry, and the track record on decommissioning, represent one of the Government's great failures over the industry. But the Government have had many other failures, too. The failure on flag of convenience vessels was a policy failure, which caused the industry huge difficulties and totally wrecked any hope of reaching the multi-annual guidance programme targets. The Government's entire strategy floundered because of that decision. I served on the Committee on the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and the Government were warned that the use of nationality as a basis might flounder in the European Court, but they went ahead just the same.
There was also a failure concerning accelerated access for the Spanish. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) gave way to the wrong Euro-sceptic, when, earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was about to tell us of the secret deal that resulted in the Spanish being allowed, almost unilaterally, to revise their own treaty of accession, and thus to secure accelerated access to western waters. The hon. Lady was about to reveal to the House what the Government had had in mind, and whether there had been any concession by Spain on qualified majority voting. She should have been encouraged to continue.
The Government's biggest failure has been their failure to bring about a coherent fisheries policy. Today we have heard that a review group is to meet, and is expected to report early next year. However, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is still awaiting the formal reply to its submission of September 1993, which contained a series of suggested ways of approaching the problems of the industry.
Time and time again, the fishing industry has offered the Government a strategy, and time and time again, the people at the Dispatch Box have greeted it with deaf ears. That is why, when fishing communities all around the coast have been sold down the river so many times by Ministers, if the Government are defeated on their fisheries policy tonight, there will be rejoicing in every fishing port the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Sir Richard Body: My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government can be assured that they will have a majority tonight, because members of the Labour party intend to demonstrate their support for the fishing industry by staying at home—preferring, I regret to say, a rather longer Christmas holiday than they would otherwise have.
Of course, there are some notable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Gentleman and I can remember when fishing was an important industry for Lincolnshire; no one can claim that it is now. Fishing is in serious decline. I believe that fewer


than 20 boats now go out of Grimsby, and in Boston we have only 40 boats in all, only a fraction of which go out at any one time.
Those who argue on behalf of the fishing industry have said again and again that the common fisheries policy will cause the total allowable catch to go down and down, because it contains no effective conservation measures. I shall draw attention to two main factors. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has been considering them, and I hope that he will argue them effectively on Thursday.
The first problem is the size of nets. We are now catching immature little fish that have had too little opportunity to grow. Most of the cod we now catch are half the size that they should be. From a conservation standpoint, that is woeful.
Secondly, there are the discards; I am sure that you know all about them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Discards are the fish that are thrown back dead into the sea, because we are not allowed to catch them. If those were only a few fish, no one would much mind, but various estimates have been made of their numbers, and the best is that discards probably account for about 1,000 million fish a year. Surely that is a crime against conservation. I hope that the Minister of State will raise that matter vigorously on Thursday, and press instead for a levy on excess catches.
Hon. Members with some part of the inshore fishing industry in their constituencies know that, as matters now stand, despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said—I do not know where my right hon. Friend has met fishermen, but I suspect that it cannot have been in this country—no fisherman has any confidence in the future of the industry after the year 2002.
Fishermen know that, when that day comes, their existing rights will have to be renegotiated, and they have no idea where they will stand then. That has created appalling uncertainty in the fishing industry. Fishing has been largely a father-to-son affair. No father in the fishing industry with a teenage son will encourage his son to join him as he will have joined his own father years before.
Moreover, even with the old dilapidated boats that we have in Boston and elsewhere, no fisherman is going to replace his boat—partly because, in the present uncertainty, no bank will lend him the many thousands of pounds that that would cost. Indeed, hardly any fishermen I know are willing to spend large sums on maintaining their boats as they should be maintained if they are to continue fishing for a few more years.
Many inshore fishermen in their forties ask me whether it is not time to get out of fishing now, rather than wait for 2002, when they will be in their fifties and it will be far more difficult for them to find another occupation. The year 2002 may seem far away to many of us, but for people concerned with inshore fishing, it is drawing close.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows that last year, at a representative gathering of fishermen in Lowestoft, I said that the common fisheries policies was so absurd, and acted so unjustly against our fishermen, that I was convinced that the Government would renegotiate it. I was pressed about that, and I said that I felt so certain about the matter that I would not reapply for the Whip until the Government renegotiated. I only hope that, on Thursday, my hon. Friend the Minister will enable me to put that matter right.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: It is somewhat ironic that, at a time of year when most of commerce and industry is looking forward to the festive season, we are debating an industry that is in a state of depression and is wondering what fate will befall it after this week's EU conference. It has been a momentous year in fishing, with traumas, successes and legal victories.
Decommissioning, which is a reflection of the depression in the fishing industry, should not be taken as a victory. It has certainly helped in trying to eradicate some of the hardships in the industry, but it is not a victory in itself. Northern Ireland's fishermen are worse off than most other UK fishermen.
My constituency has three of the four fishing ports in Northern Ireland, and they depend very much on the fisheries in the Irish sea area VIIa. Local fishermen must cope with quotas—which, they say, bear no relation to the fish to be found in the area—but the depleted quotas will be further hit by the detrimental effect of the Hague preference allocations. Unfortunately, this year new complications have crept into the equation in the shape of the uncertainty surrounding international swaps. It is vital that the swaps proceed. They provide a much-needed lifeline that sustains viable fisheries in area VII, and their importance in the wider western waters area is crucial.
My constituency is unique as it has a water border with the Republic of Ireland. Fishermen from my constituency, who are restricted by quotas, can see their colleagues just a couple of miles away in the Irish Republic merrily fishing. They are not catching the quotas allocated to them under the Hague preference. It is important that the international swaps are negotiated in such a way that Northern Ireland fishermen get the better part of their traditional access to the Irish sea fisheries in area VIIa. The swaps must not be used as a back door for additional Spanish or other European fishing fleets to gain access to protected waters.
I understand that evidence given by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management at a recent meeting seemed to be based on fairly weak foundations. The ACFM seems to contend that if a TAC is not caught, the fish do not exist. That is nonsense and it has no scientific base whatsoever. The vast majority of countries annually fail to catch their TAC, and sometimes only 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the catch is taken up. On that basis, scientists propose to make further cuts, which seems to be totally unscientific and illogical. The cuts will have little or no impact on nations that do not catch their TAC, but a very substantial impact on those countries whose TAC is so restricted as to be minimal.
Northern Ireland's fishermen have been crying out for some time for something to be done with the area VII haddock TAC. Fishermen tell me, and I have no reason to doubt them, that there is a very substantial haddock fishery, but as the United Kingdom quota is so small—it is only some 600 tonnes—they have been unable to take advantage of the abundance of stock. Despite all their efforts, they have been told that the stock merits only a brief mention in this year's report by fisheries' scientists, despite the fact that the scientists agree that the fish are there. What are fishermen supposed to do? Why is the scientific community not as quick to advise on increases in quotas as it is to advise on cuts?


The second matter to which I should like to refer is cod area VIIa. The ACFM advised that there should be almost 7 per cent. of further cuts in this TAC. The cut is not as severe as in previous years, but fishermen in Northern Ireland have no confidence in the ACFM's proposals. Catches during 1995 in the species and sector have been as good as, if not better than, in previous years, so how distinct to area VIIa is the cod stock?
Has any calculation been made of the consequences of decommissioning? One of the consequences is that there will be a reduction in the effort put into fishing. Have these points been taken into consideration? I contend that if they had, the proposed 6.9 per cent. reduction in cod for area VIIa would not have been proposed.
Fishermen have little confidence in the ACFM's proposals for plaice and sole because, again, it appears that an unscientific approach has been taken to the problem. There is substantial evidence of well-recovered stocks of haddock, cod, plaice and sole in the sector.
I hope that in their negotiations towards the end of the week, Ministers will take the matter on board and challenge the evidence that has been given. It seems that our European partners do not take proper cognisance of the scientific evidence, which is freely available, and they seem panic-stricken as they go for further and further quota cuts.
I referred earlier to the relationship between the fishermen of Northern Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland. We have heard from other hon. Members that some of the quotas are simply not caught in the Republic of Ireland. Each year, the Department of Agriculture at the Northern Ireland Office enters into negotiations with its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland to arrange for local swaps of those parts of the quota that will not be caught.
Could not the Government enter into a more meaningful and long-term agreement with the fisheries department in the Republic of Ireland, whereby there could be an exchange of unfished quotas between the two fishing fleets? After all, until a few decades ago, the fleets had a common approach and common fishing areas, and they still have the same interests. Could not the Government make this a more meaningful and permanent arrangement, so that the element of uncertainty between the north and south of Ireland could be eliminated?
I hope that there will be an increase in quotas for cod and whiting in area VII, and that the quota arrangements for haddock in area VIIa will be enhanced to take cognisance of the scientific evidence, which seems to show that fishing shoals have returned there. Finally, there is a need for more permanent swap arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I have no interest to declare in the debate, other than that as a practical butcher and farmer, I have enormous sympathy with the plight of that other group of intensely practical people—British fishermen—as a result of the machinations of the common fisheries policy. I have not hidden my ambition to see this country leave the CFP, which is also the object of the Save Britain's Fish campaign, to which I and several of my colleagues have pledged our support.
Some in the Chamber will seek to question my motives for supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). I do not impugn the motives of the integrationists on these Benches, and I trust that they will desist from impugning mine. Some people recognise the danger that the renegotiation of the CFP by 2002 would, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris),
mean the end of the fishing industry as we know it".—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 581.]
However, if those people, perversely, do not support amendment (b), suffice to say that the ballot box will be the final arbiter.
I have spent some time reading and re-reading the Official Report of the debates that took place on 23 October and 22 November to refresh my memory of the arguments deployed by the Minister of State in defence of the CFP. I accept that his basic position is as set out in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter), when he stated:
Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not an option, either legally or practically."—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 969.]
I will deal with those points in due course.
My hon. Friend's case against withdrawal from the CFP seems to hang on three points: first, the time that it would take the Government to negotiate satisfactory bilateral agreements with other countries; secondly, the absence of any especially strong or co-ordinated objections to the CFP in the past; and, thirdly, the legal problems associated with disengagement.
I trust that the House will recognise that none of those arguments is sufficient in itself to justify the perpetuation of a regime that is so obviously defective in that it is precipitating the demise of British fishing industry, failing to protect fishing stocks, encouraging short-term exploitation at the expense of genuine conservation, making criminals of otherwise honest people alienating public opinion and perpetuating the situation in which a vital British interest is compromised by the process of qualified majority voting.
On the point about negotiating satisfactory bilateral agreements, it is a fact that the Government are concluding such agreements with all sorts of countries on all sorts of issues as a matter of routine. Does my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept that, in the calendar year to date, the Government have concluded no fewer than 81 bilateral treaties and 28 multilateral treaties? The time that Ministers and civil servants expend in the process has never previously deterred Governments from pursuing their objectives. That is an entirely spurious argument to advance as a reason for doing nothing about the common fisheries policy.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State has asserted that there have been no protests in the past about the CFP. In 1971, however, the fishing industry was assured by the Government that its interests would be protected. Indeed, I have a photocopy of a letter dated 4 October 1971, signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), in which he said:
For our part, as the White Paper said, we are determined to secure arrangements which will safeguard the interests of British fishermen.


When the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, no less, gave such a categorical assurance, the whole industry was entitled to believe that there was no cause for concern.
Fishermen at that time, and subsequently, were entitled to believe that their interests really would be protected. It is only now that the realisation is dawning that this never was—and under the terms of the CFP never could be—the case. The fact that it has taken 20 years or more for the duplicity of a previous generation of politicians to manifest itself cannot in any way justify my hon. Friend's determination to preserve the present arrangements.
I also submit that any person looking dispassionately at the present unsatisfactory situation would recognise that the reason why there were no strong objections about fisheries, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State avers, at the time of the Spanish and Portuguese accession is in good measure because the Spanish and the Portuguese were not scheduled to gain full access to the CFP until 2002. It is the bringing forward of their full membership of the CFP to 1 January 1996 that has precipitated the present outcry.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gill: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, we are limited to 10-minute speeches and I am anxious to make several points. I hope that he will have an opportunity to make his contribution to the debate.
Whatever the Government may say about the Spanish accession, a deal was done at the time of the later accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the European Community whereby full membership of the CFP for the Spanish and Portuguese was accelerated by six years. At no stage were right hon. and hon. Members informed that that was being done, nor the reasons for doing it.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State's assertion that Members of Parliament were fully aware of the ramifications of the United Kingdom's entry into the CFP is questionable. Furthermore, I question whether hon. Members were able to follow the Government's more recent footwork in accelerating the full entry of Spain and Portugal into the CFP. I wonder how many parliamentarians, even today, are aware that the CFP is not spelt out in treaty form, but exists only by dint of EC regulations.
I turn now to the Minister's statement that it is not practically possible to withdraw from the CFP. Indeed, he addressed that problem in an earlier debate. He is on record as saying:
It is politically unrealistic to imagine that a new deal can be done that will result in other countries in the European Union giving away fishing opportunities to the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 22 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 591.]
Precisely. It is inconceivable that any other member of the European Union would vote for any substantial change in the present arrangements, under which the majority of European Union countries get a bargain at the expense of the United Kingdom.
We get what can only be described as a raw deal, notwithstanding the fact that this country contributes more than 60 per cent. of the European Union's fishing stocks. My hon. Friend the Minister recognises that, under qualified majority voting, it is practically impossible to

obtain any redress for Great Britain. Those who believe that the application of a veto will alter that situation are deluding themselves and misleading the people whom they represent.
On the subject of the legal obstacles to withdrawal from the CFP, I remind my hon. Friend that the political reality is that, at the next general election, the electorate will not stop to consider the legal niceties, but will simply vote in accordance with their perception of what is right or wrong.
I conclude my remarks by reminding my hon. Friend the Minister that Cicero's maxim
salus populi suprema est lex"—
the good of the people is the chief law—is, in the context of his present difficulties, the overriding political imperative in the run-up to the next general election. This fisheries policy is not the will of the people: it is the diktat of bureaucrats and their political apparatchiks.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: An interesting paradox of these debates is the fact that the stronger the opposition in the fishing industry to the common fisheries policy grows, the more vigorously Ministers come here to defend it—inadequately and disingenuously—and the less they can deliver. They busily defend it in the Chamber while obtaining little that will benefit the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
Today the Government are putting the squeeze on their supporters and telling them not to rock the boat or damage relations with Europe. Their line is that if we rock the boat on the common fisheries policy it could endanger our whole relationship with Europe. Meanwhile the Conservatives' leader, the Prime Minister, goes to European Councils, rocks the boat and damages our relations with Europe. In other words, the Government are telling their Back Benchers not to behave like the Prime Minister.
Instead of coming here to deliver their laboured defences of the common fisheries policy—as witness the Minister's opening speech—Ministers would be better employed getting some achievements for the British fishing industry. They should be as virile in Europe in obtaining something for our fishermen as they are in the House when defending the CFP to their own Back Benchers. I do not want to pursue that path today, but most of the debate has centred on it.
Our fishing industry is in crisis, and nowhere more so than in Grimsby, whose fleet, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) suggested, has shrunk below the limits of viability. The same is happening all over the country. As British vessels go out of business, their track records are bought up by quota hoppers. Most of the fishing done in excess of our targets is done by foreign companies which arrive and buy up British quotas because they are over target in their own countries. So they escape their targets by buying up the British quotas, and if flagship vessels went out of business we would find ourselves below target.
Ministers are imposing a double whammy on the industry. First, it is hit by the common fisheries policy. That is inevitable; our fishing grounds are the richest in the world, so we shall face intense competition if we turn a larger European fishing effort loose on them. If the CFP


were effective in terms of conservation, we would not be holding today's debate because the industry would not be facing the problems of over-fishing and shrinking stocks.
Ministers have not defended British interests at all. When it comes to negotiations, something else is always more important so they give way on fishing—on Spanish access to our fishing grounds, for instance, to get Norway into the European Community. Always the higher aim results in fishing being sacrificed. To that extent, Ministers do not defend British fishing interests in Europe.
At the same time as the CFP is damaging our industry, Ministers are failing to provide it with the sort of backing and support which our competitor countries give their industries. They are our competitors, not our partners. The French fishing industry still gets the fuel subsidy to which Ministers have been objecting. That subsidy helps with the fuel costs of French fishing boats which come to fish in our fishing grounds—and it comes from the French Government. No such support is forthcoming from our Government.
Other industries such as the Spanish receive Government support for modernising their fleets, which then compete with our aging fleet which receives no Government support of that kind. Nor does our industry have the benefit of ports of landing facilities, which are provided as a local government service to the Danish and Dutch fleets. We pay heavy landing charges for which there is no Government help.
The industry might be able to put up with one or other—with the depredations of the CFP on the one hand or the lack of Government support on the other. The ports of landing in Europe are inadequately policed, so that there is no real control over the catches taken from our waters. The fishing industry might be able to cope with the slow anorexia that the Government are imposing on it, but it cannot cope with both problems at once.
It is wrong for Ministers to come here and vigorously defend the CFP when that defence is no more than a cloak for their inactivity and inadequate support for the industry. The industry cannot support the double whammy being imposed on it. When we lament the coming cuts in quotas, Ministers always tell us in these debates that they intend to go to Europe and get a good deal for our interests. They then come back after Christmas and apologise, saying that they were outvoted and could not get their way—they could not get the deal that we had been led to expect. The same will happen again this time.
We are being asked to accept substantial reductions in the total allowable catch of plaice; that will be disastrous for Grimsby, which relies mainly on cod but also on plaice. The problem would be compounded if the Minister engaged in the yearly swap agreed with the Dutch on plaice quotas. If plaice quotas are to be reduced, we cannot agree to any further such swaps with the Dutch. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will not go ahead with it this year.
What is needed is greater stability. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations is asking that year on year swings be moderated to 15 per cent. The industry needs that certainty to be able to plan ahead. We should not enforce sudden, massive quota cuts on the industry, sometimes based on scientific advice which is

not good at year-by-year predictions but which is very good at predicting long-term fluctuations in stocks. The problem with year-on-year predictions is that they do not take into account the perceptions of the industry. Many skippers complain to me about scientific advice which is not borne out in the fishing grounds, where stocks are much greater or smaller than scientists say. Hence scientific predictions need to be combined with the knowledge of the industry in a process of consultation before being enforced.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will commit himself to moderating year by year swings and to ensuring that scientists consult the industry before quota cuts are based on advice that may be wrong. In its pathetic and shrunken condition, the industry needs Government support of the kind provided for the competing industries in Europe. It also needs stability and certainty so that it can survive to inherit the better years which must lie ahead.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay): A proportion of those who still work in what survives of the fishing industry in the south-west live in my constituency and work out of Brixham. They tell me that there are more MAFF inspectors than police officers there. That is a sad indictment of what has gone so terribly wrong in our industry.
There is an overwhelming recognition by everyone in the industry of the need for conservation. People understand it because it represents their future and their children's future. At any rate, that is what they believed. There is no fisherman in the country who does not understand the need for conservation. Despite the gloom cast over the House by the Secretary of State's predictions of likely future quota cuts, the fishermen to whom I have spoken are all perfectly willing to accept those cuts—if they are limited to what they would refer to as the British fishing fleet. That is where the real problem lies, because around 28 per cent. of the tonnage of the British fishing fleet is not British at all, but Spanish. If we could get over that problem, many of our difficulties would disappear.
Two quite separate problems face the Government. The first is conservation and the need to reduce our fishing effort. Everyone accepts and understands the arguments for that all too well. We can do something about that, perhaps, in a common fisheries policy.
The second problem exposes the impotence of the Government. Following the judgment in the European Court of Justice, the Government cannot insist that British vessels are precisely that: British owned, British registered and with British flags. The real problem is that 30 per cent. of those vessels are owned by foreigners who are quota hoppers and who are living off the backs of our fishermen and destroying our industry.
The first problem is one with which my hon. Friend the Minister is well qualified to deal. I wish him well on Thursday when he goes to Europe. He has a difficult task, but, like his predecessors, he has done a good job for the industry in fighting our corner. The real problem lies with the quota hoppers.
As I voted with the Opposition on the last occasion when the matter was before the House, I listened carefully to the Labour party's proposals. It seemed to me that the


hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) proposed, first, that total allowable catches should be based entirely on scientific evidence. The second plank of his argument was that scientists should be given more resources so that they can understand precisely what the problems are and make accurate assessments. The third part of the argument was that we should ignore the scientists on socio-economic grounds.
Many Conservative Members wanted to understand what firm proposals the Opposition had to get us out of the dilemma, but there was nothing there. For those of us who in the past had tried to get some comfort from Opposition proposals on this difficult issue, there was none to be had.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech could be summarised as, "Brace yourself because there is bad news to come." He tempered this with the slightly good news that harbour improvement grants would be restored. I welcome that, but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his winding-up speech to say that he will take another look at the way in which the Spanish and the Dutch in the North sea have been exploiting our quotas. That is the key to the problem.
I accept that the lawyers say that we lost last time and that the law is against us. Fine—but I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to find a way around that conundrum. I judge that the compromises that have been made in the past, to the detriment of the industry, were made by the Foreign Office because it does not regard the industry as significant or important. Invariably, compromises have been reached and the industry handicapped because the Foreign Office has decided that other issues are more important. When it comes to qualified majority voting, it believes that the fishing industry is dead and buried and insignificant, so we abstain on fishing to get Spanish support on some more important topic. That is unacceptable.
I urge hon. Members who do not have fishermen in their constituencies to accept that there can be nothing more distressing than to see a fishermen having to go down to his boat, not with a net and a lifejacket but with a chainsaw, to destroy it. That is what the Spanish and Dutch are forcing our industry to do. It is distressing, wrong and short-termist. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any other country in the European Union whose fishing industry has been dealt with in such a devastating and damaging way as has the UK fishing industry?

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. Not only have we been handicapped in that way, but it appears that it is our money that has been spent on improving the Spanish fleets. There is nothing more upsetting for our fishermen than to know that funds paid by them through their taxes have gone to our competitors. They may be our partners in the European Union, but they are competitors and they are putting us out of business with our own taxpayer's money.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister of State to give an undertaking to take another look at the abuse of flags of convenience. In those circumstances, I would reconsider the way I voted last time the issue came before the House. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well on Thursday, but

I urge and beg him to fight for British interests because if he does not, no one else will—certainly not the Foreign Office.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said that this was the most important fishing debate of the year. If the Labour party thinks so much of the subject, why on earth did it not get a full day's debate out of the Government, rather than a half-day? That does not say much for its negotiating skills. I am sorry to have to start on that note, because there was much in what the hon. Gentleman said with which I agreed. If the matter is important, let us have a full day's debate next time.
If it were possible that the Government might be cajoled into following the course of action suggested in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), I would urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support them. That is no secret. However, that will not happen—or at least, not yet. Our fallback position will be that set out by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris)—with, of course, particular reference to the interests of Northern Ireland.
Every year on this issue, there is nothing more or less than a further instalment of crisis management. Far too much catch capacity is chasing too few fish. Allied to that is a lack of accurate information about the quantity of fish present in the sea. We have to expect that the efficiency of the vessels will continue to increase. There will be fewer and fewer vessels chasing the same number of fish.
If I have a quibble with what the hon. Member for St. Ives said, it is on his comment about firm scientific advice. Experience has shown that scientists' assessments can be wildly astray. It may well be that a large margin of error is always involved, but if, on top of that, the sort of, cheating to which the hon. Gentleman referred is added in, it is no wonder that the assessments go astray. In fact, it would be a miracle if the scientists got it right. Unless everybody is prepared to play by the rules of the game, there is no chance whatsoever of coming up with firm estimates of the numbers of a species in an area at a given time.
For instance, last year, the advice was that cod and whiting in the Irish sea were in a parlous state. This year, the advice is optimistic, but only the status quo for catches is being allowed. I hope that my remarks will be read in conjunction with those of the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for North Antrim, (Dr. Paisley), who touched on aspects of what I am trying to put across to the House.
We need to be willing to reassess the situation as fishing returns demonstrate the abundance or scarcity of a particular species in a given fishery.
As the United Kingdom Minister can argue for only three species at a time, although there are 18, his ability to debate the entire range is somewhat limited. Is the information that has been given in that respect correct? For instance, we are told that this year the Irish sea contains a huge amount of haddock. The hon. Member for South Down referred to that matter in detail. We know from the returns that the fish are there, but we are not allowed to catch them. The figure mentioned is 600 tonnes, but the scientists say, "Well, perhaps we could catch up to 2,000." So why should not Northern Ireland fishermen catch them?


So long as we proceed with short-term, ad hoc, arrangements, we shall get nowhere. Short-term changes must be measured against the general framework of total allowable catches and quotas, which are out of tune with the real position in the Irish sea.
Despite what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, much of the United Kingdom's problem stems from its failure to defend its interests when we entered the EEC. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman rejecting that argument, which was put rather brutally by one of his right hon. Friends. I have been told that, although the principle was agreed, embodied within the principle was the whole concept of qualified majority voting. If that is so, whatever case the United Kingdom put forward, it would never have been accepted. It had not a snowball's chance of getting anywhere.
Whenever we return to the position in the Irish sea, we find that the Irish Republic never catches the high quotas that it is allowed for cod and whiting, for instance. The reason for that is simple: it was given twice its true entitlement on historic fishing returns. That seems to me and the fishermen in Northern Ireland to be mad, and something needs to be done about it. If we do not catch the quota, the uncaught fish will act as a magnet to other nations looking for fish. That is unavoidable. We must have sufficient swaps to ensure that those quota are caught.
Will the Minister assure us that the promise made by Earl Howe in the other place on 26 October 1992, that the Government will continue to reduce any disadvantages to Northern Ireland and Wales—by, for example, utilising the system of quota exchanges with other member states, which traditionally enabled the United Kingdom to obtain additional quantities of fish in the Irish sea—will be carried into effect? Has that promise been buried? If so, it is regrettable, because it was a firm promise, and the Government should give an undertaking this evening to honour it.
I hope that, when the Minister goes off later this week to argue the case for the United Kingdom, he will persuade the Irish Minister to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government this year, so that the maximum number of available fish can be harvested from the Irish sea by those who earn their livelihoods there. As the Government of the Irish Republic failed to support Her Majesty's Government last year when we were trying to defend the Irish box, they owe us one. The problem that my hon. Friends and I face this evening is how we can best strengthen the Government's hand in their negotiations later this week.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I always find it sad when a Minister with a fine mind deploys his cerebral skills and undoubted rhetorical talents in an intellectually unsustainable argument. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland fulfilled that unenviable task with great courtesy, and I listened with rapt attention to what he said.
It may help the House if I subject the amendment tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friends to textual analysis. It
requires Her Majesty's Government to issue at the forthcoming Inter-Governmental Conference a statement of its intention to declare an exclusive fishing zone out to 200 miles or to the median line and of its decision in principle to withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy to be endorsed by the British people at the next general election.
The intention behind the use of the verb "requires" is to assert the primacy of this Parliament. This Parliament must be sovereign if we are to recover the proper relationship between our country and the European Union. We must utilise any opportunities for genuine dialogue with our Community partners to our advantage.
The intergovernmental conference, which begins on 29 March, is a classic case in point. It is an opportunity not to be missed. Many people will allege that fishing is not on the agenda, but I am sure that the conference, which is likely to continue for several months, will have some "any other business", and that, in the course of the proceedings, we can make it known that the United Kingdom Government intend to declare an exclusive fishing zone up to 200 miles—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that his amendment has not been selected for debate. Therefore, while an allusion to his amendment is in order, a detailed analysis of what is written on the Order Paper is not.

Mr. Wilkinson: In that case, I shall seek to deploy arguments which are germane to the whole debate.
Our country must make it clear to our European Union partners what we intend to do, so that they may make appropriate representations to us to secure the necessary bilateral fishing agreements in traditional fishing areas within our waters.
The Icelanders and Norwegians have found that a 200-mile limit is essential to safeguard their fishing interests. At the time of the cod war, I went to Iceland with the North Atlantic Assembly military tour. I was struck by the fact that relations between peoples were not adversely affected, as both sides recognised that vital interests were at stake.
With the benefit of hindsight, no one can reasonably suggest that what the Icelanders bravely did was wrong. I believe that they were right. Others will say that the Canadian— example—Canada has a 200-mile limit—proves that a 200-mile limit does not necessarily secure the conservation of stocks. That is true, but if, having asserted a 200-mile limit, we fail to conserve, the fault will be entirely ours. We shall pursue a conservation policy that is manifestly in Britain's interests, so it should have the support of fishing communities, because they will understand that they benefit.

Mr. Marlow: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a note that I have received, prepared by the Library for my Whip? This sentence is headed:
The Argument against the CFP",
and the statement made in the note is:
The problem is, rather, that it has a poor record on conserving fish.
That is the Library's objective view.

Mr. Wilkinson: It is also the objective view of my extremely honest right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who expressed it loud and clear in his


opening remarks. That is why we say quite candidly that the common fisheries policy is a busted flush, and we should be no further part of it.
However, if we are to take such an important step, we must inform our Community partners, and we need the support of the British electorate. In the process of European construction, the last people to be consulted, and the last people who are carried along with the policy, are the voters, which is why the issue should be put to them in the Conservative party manifesto. They will then know that, if they vote Conservative, we shall pull out, we shall have a 200-mile limit, and British fishing communities will he protected.
That is not Labour party policy, which rests on reform of the CFP, a hopeless undertaking. The Liberal Democrat party's policy will do exactly the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) said, we need to look to 2002, to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy and the enlargement of the Community. When Poland and the Baltic states join, their fishermen will, by treaty, be entitled to access to the common resource of our fisheries. This will cause further depredation of stock. It will lead to diminished quotas for our fishermen, and less chance of a sustainable livelihood for them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland averred that it would be impossible for us to withdraw, and that we were bound by treaty to stay in. I challenge that argument. If the British electorate have clearly demonstrated that they wish our country to withdraw from the CFP, our sovereign Parliament should instruct our Government so to do.
If there were retaliation, what form would it take? It might take the form of action in the area of trade or other areas of mutual interest, but what would be our counter-retaliation? Perhaps it would be not to pay so much money to the European Union. We are the second biggest net contributor, and much of our net contribution goes to subsidising Spanish fishermen and others who are putting British fishermen out of work. We must confront the challenge head on.
Hon. and right hon. Members will have noticed British fishermen going to sea with the Canadian flag at the masthead. Something is seriously wrong if British fishermen go to sea with a foreign flag flying from the masts of their vessels. It demonstrates a degree of alienation, at the least, which I find horrifying.
Such displays have their good side. In my office, I have a Canadian flag proudly displayed, which was presented to me and some hon. Friends by our counterparts in the Canadian Parliament for the support we gave them when their Government challenged the European Union about fishing rights off the Newfoundland banks. I shall not go into the legalities of who was right and who was wrong; all I know is that the British people were wholeheartedly behid our Canadian friends. To be candid, they were affronted that we appeared initially to take the side of the Spaniards.
On matters of this kind, emotions are important. We need to take account of the heartfelt feelings of our constituents and the fishing communities, and do what we know in our hearts to be right.
We are a maritime nation. It is appropriate that we should be responsible for the conservation of our own stocks. We should have an exclusive fishing zone out to

200 miles. We should inform our Community partners that that is what we intend to do, and we should seek the endorsement of the British people for the policy. If we do that, we shall gain the political initiative, and be rewarded for it.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall be brief, because I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) wants to start his speech at 6.30.
Those of us who represent fishing constituencies know that the industry is in crisis. Unfortunately, some of the contributions by hon. Members who do not represent fishing constituencies did not present practical solutions to the immediate, short-term and medium-term problems that confront the industry.
The withdrawal from the common fisheries policy and the establishment of a 200-mile limit will not solve the problems of people living in my constituency or many other fishing constituencies in the next few years, because it cannot be achieved.
We need to do what the Government have failed to do, at least during my time in the present Parliament, since April 1992—tackle the serious problem of effort versus stocks. It began with the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992, which tried to bring in the days-at-sea limitation, to limit effort that way, which was finally thrown out, not too long ago, by the European Court. The Government failed to accept what all the Opposition parties and the industry were saying at the time—that the only solution was a decommissioning programme that worked, which would reduce effort and compensate fishermen who decided to leave the industry.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that the French and Spanish had been able to invest in their industry, in their equipment and in their boats. The reason for that is that they have been meeting their multi-annual guidance programmes and have been able to qualify for grant aid, which the Government have failed to do in each of the multi-annual guidance programmes. Therefore, British fishermen and the British industry have been unable to benefit from grant aid, and to upgrade and improve their equipment.
One reason why the quota-hoppers and flagships have been able to come in and pick up British licences is that British fishermen have not had the wherewithal and the support from the Government and the financial institutions to enable them to invest in new plant and equipment. We end up in the crazy position where we artificially try to control the amount of fish that is caught, rather than tackling the effort problem. We end up with the farce that the TACs and the quotas have become. We have that huge roller-coaster—the term that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations used—of quotas and TACs.
Last year, the TAC for western hake was reduced by about 45 per cent., and it was understood and hoped that that would solve the problem in relation to that stock. Now we find that the proposal for next year is, not the status quo, not an increase, but yet another cut, of about 29 per cent. How can any industry that depends on one product, plan and invest in such circumstances? We have substantial evidence from the fishermen on landings of


cod in the Irish Sea, where, apparently, there is an abundance of cod and of haddock, yet there is no change in the TAC.
I hope that the Minister will consider the issue relating to the Irish sea, in relation to both the failure on occasions of the Irish Republic fishermen to meet their TACs, and the fact that English, Welsh and Northern Irish fishermen are constantly up against the ceiling of the TAC that has been set.
Unless we tackle the problem of the other effort, we shall repeatedly have this debate, as we do every year, just before the Minister goes off to Europe to try to argue a case that we all know will fail. Unless we tackle that problem, we shall have the same debate yet again, and the arguments will be made yet again, the following year.
One reason why we have that serious problem in relation to conservation is that we constantly speak about total allowable catches when they are not that, as the Minister knows; they are total allowable landings. There is a massive difference between what is taken out of the sea and what is landed in the ports. I have been told that discards may be at least 40 per cent. of TAC; 40 per cent. that will have no benefit to the market or to the fishermen, fish that are dead and returned to the sea. Unless that issue is tackled, I am afraid that TACs will never work.
We need to tackle the problem of the flagships. I accept that many attempts have been made by the Government to consider that, but I seek from the Minister of State an assurance that the fishermen of Wales and of south-west England will not suffer any reduction in their quota as a result of the 40 Spanish vessels coming into that part of the Irish box that they will be able to enter from 1 January 1996.
We want an assurance that no British fisherman, whether Welsh or English, will suffer reductions in the quota for any species as a result of that measure. The Minister was asked to give that assurance the last time we debated the issue, but I am afraid that the answer we received was, to say the least, non-committal. The matter is vital for the south-west and the Welsh fishing ports.
I hope—I fear that it is a hollow hope—that the next time we have a debate, we shall be able to say that fishing effort has been reduced sensibly in co-operation with the industry. I hope that we shall at last be able to say that we are starting to match our conservation measures with effort and stocks. I hope that there will be a partnership between Government, Europe, industry and the scientists. It may be a forlorn hope, but unless we start tackling the problem soon, our industry is doomed.

Mr. Elliot Morley: This has been an important debate and there have been many useful contributions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that it is an annual debate for which we should have more time. He will appreciate that the business timetable is in the Government's hands. But when we are in government he can be assured that we will listen sympathetically to his representations.
The Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned the 1992 manifesto: in 1992 the Labour party made suggestions for amending the common fisheries policy, working with the

fishing community on conservation measures and campaigning throughout the fishing constituencies. The moves were covered in the fishing press. The Government are only now—three years later—considering many of those ideas in the review committee. We do not need lessons from the Government about what we have been doing.
In some ways today's debate is a re-run of previous debates. In the past, when the Government felt that they were under pressure, they suddenly came up with more money for the decommissioning scheme, which was welcome at the time. Now, when they are under pressure, we suddenly find that the harbour grant scheme has been reinstated—it is a more modest contribution than the decommissioning scheme, but it is welcome for all that. We shall not be churlish about it.
Much attention has been focused on the debate for many reasons. There is no doubt that the debate provides an opportunity to discuss European Union policy as it affects our country. It is completely legitimate to question the mechanics of the European Union, particularly how it applies in terms of the common fisheries policy—many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have done so. But we must not forget the importance of the debate to the British fishing industry, and I shall touch on some of the serious concerns.
I shall first discuss the quotas set for individual species which the Minister will have to discuss at the Fisheries Council. Concern has been voiced in tonight's debate about the way in which the quotas seem to fluctuate wildly from year to year. That not only makes it difficult for the fishing industry in terms of applying effort and using opportunities, it does not help the credibility of science. I accept that there are difficulties in calculating fish stocks at sea. It seems strange that some stocks have increased dramatically over recent years, while others have been dramatically cut. It does not help when the Government make cuts in sectors of vital fisheries research, such as they have done recently on research into the impact of the industrial fishing of sand eels in Shetland. The Government also made research and development cuts across the board in the Budget, including cuts in fisheries research.
The Minister will be discussing species quotas. We certainly welcome the fact that there will be an 8 per cent. increase in the cod quota, but it is thought within the industry that the increase could be greater given the evidence of large numbers of cod presently in the North sea. It is strange that there is to be no increase for channel cod although it is accepted that the stocks of channel cod and North sea cod are linked to some extent.
A big issue for our fleets involves North sea sole and plaice. There is great concern about the 29 per cent. cut in that quota, which will hit our eastern, Northern Ireland, south-western and Irish sea fleets. The problem of swaps with Holland has been mentioned. If no swaps are to take place, I hope that the Minister will look at the total allowable catch for the western waters for those fish that we would normally obtain from a swap with the Dutch. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made a clear case for western hake for his local fishing fleet. It would be helpful if the Minister would say whether such a swap would take place at the current projected total of 78,000 tonnes for North sea plaice or whether the total would have to be increased for the swap to go ahead.


There is a severe cut of 22 per cent. in the whiting quota. It seems strange that in recent years it has been argued that the quota should be increased because whiting are predatory fish and affect the white fish stocks. But the present cut is so large that it could invoke the Hague preference. I hope that in his negotiations the Minister will ensure that the quota limits are set at a level that does not do so because of the problems involved in the Hague preference. That preference provides benefits for this country north of Bridlington, but also applies to the Republic of Ireland and therefore has implications for our Northern Ireland fleet and the fleet that fishes in area VII. The Irish Republic is trying to invoke the Hague preference on Irish sea cod and haddock, which has implications for our area VII fleet.
Throughout the debate we have discussed the common fisheries policy; we cannot talk about quotas and fisheries management without discussing how the common fisheries policy operates. The subject cannot be avoided as it is the framework for the fisheries management scheme. Our amendment recognises that there are severe problems with the CFP and that we need a radical approach to reform.
Much attention has focused on whether there will be a rebellion tonight and the reason for it in terms of the political agenda, particularly for those with Eurosceptic views. There is no doubt that the policy of voting against the Government on various European issues has been successful for the Eurosceptics. The debate has provoked the Foreign Secretary into taking to the airways to appeal to the dissidents. The Prime Minister has written articles in The Daily Telegraph that have been slanted towards the dissidents. Tonight, a former Prime Minister and the current Secretary of State for Scotland have spoken in the debate. There is no doubt that the Eurosceptics' tactics have been successful and are moving the Government towards their agenda, whether for good or ill.
The debate, however, is about the dire state of our fishing industry. To be fair, those who have spoken have had a genuine interest in the subject—they include hon. Members from Northern Ireland, from the nationalist and Liberal Democrat parties, and hon. Members from both sides of the House who represent fishing constituencies. Even those with Eurosceptic views have taken an interest in the problems of our fishing fleet. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) feels passionately about the subject and knows the effect of the policy on his local fishermen.
Problems with the common fisheries policy include those involving the Western waters and Spanish accession; the fact that Spanish and Portuguese vessels are to be allowed in from 1 January, six years ahead of schedule. There are also problems involving control measures on our south-western and Northern Ireland fleet; problems of bureaucracy; the flagships issue; the need to qualify properly the principle of a common fisheries resource—a key issue; problems of meeting the multi-annual guidance programme and effort control; problems of having an ageing fleet compared with those of other countries; enforcement problems, particularly with other countries; problems of implementing a conservation scheme that is tailored to our waters; and the problem of discards. There is a need for associated socio-economic measures and a need to consider the operation of the decommissioning scheme. Increasing pressure is being placed on many of the white fish in the

North sea which fall within the two to three-year-old age group, which means that the potential of the larger species is never realised.
The Labour party calls for reform of the CAP and recognises that we must seek co-operation to achieve that; no one country can achieve it alone. We firmly believe that, even within the framework of the CAP, we can achieve greater national autonomy. We also believe that there is scope for greater involvement of fishermen in the management of stocks through their associations and producer organisations. There are structural conservation packages, many of which were put forward by organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to deal with the practical problems of conservation. We need to gather allies and support for those packages and we must talk to the Commission. The Labour party has already begun that process.
Conservative Members must ask why other fishing countries such as Norway and Spain are so successful at negotiating good deals for their fishery sectors. The answer must be the pressure that is applied to their Governments in their respective Parliaments. A vote tonight for Labour's amendment would send a clear signal to the European Commission that neither the British Parliament nor the British fishing industry are satisfied with the present common fisheries policy or the current state of the industry. That is a perfectly respectable position for any Member of Parliament to take on the issue.
In that respect, a vote for our amendment is vital as a demonstration of the House's support for our fishing communities. Members of Parliament who represent fishing communities know that their fishermen want and expect them to support the amendment. For far too long, the British fishing industry has been isolated in terms of the support that it believes it should receive from Government. Tonight we have an opportunity to rectify the matter.

Mr. Gallie: Earlier this afternoon I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) whether he had considered inserting some reference to total allowable catches in his amendment. I cannot understand why that has not been included in the amendment. In attempting to persuade Conservative Members, perhaps the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe could refer to that very important issue.

Mr. Morley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present for the beginning of my speech, but I discussed in detail the quotas issue and the problems that the industry faces in that regard. I outlined how those problems could be dealt with. The quotas issue is open for negotiation. The Minister has some scope in that area and we hope that he will move the negotiations in the directions that I have outlined in some detail.
Members of Parliament who want to see reform of the common fisheries policy and European institutions—they are our objectives, although we may disagree about the detail—represent a strand of opinion in this country that expects them to support the amendment. The vote tonight should not be seen simply as a vote for a Labour amendment, an Opposition amendment or even a particular Government position. It should be seen as a statement of intent to the European Commission that change is needed. We must adopt a clear policy position that will reinforce the


Government's position in the negotiations in Europe. Above all, it is a vote for an amendment which promotes the British fishing industry. In that respect, it is worthy of the support of all hon. Members.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): As the United Kingdom Fisheries Minister, I have only one ambition: to represent the best interests of the United Kingdom fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), my noble Friend Baroness Denton of Wakefield and I shall attend the Fisheries Council meeting this week. I doubt whether any other member state will have in attendance so many Ministers who are committed to defending and promoting the interests of their industry.
Hon. Members must recognise that it is not foreigners that we should fear, but the straightforward fact that at present too many fishing vessels are chasing too few fish. There is no escaping the fact that the failure to conserve fish stocks poses the greatest threat to the fishing industry. We must have regard to the scientific evidence which suggests that a considerable number of our most important fish stocks could collapse within a matter of years without tough conservation measures. Some 60 per cent. of fish stocks are already below minimum biological levels.
I must ensure not only that our fishing industry has the maximum catch next year but that there are sustainable levels of fish in the seas for our fishermen to catch the year after next and in every year as we move into the next century. Co-operation with our European partners is essential in view of the overcapacity of fishing fleets and the fact that fish do not respect national boundaries. We fish in the waters of other countries and they fish in ours, so it is essential that there is collaboration and co-operation throughout Europe.
A number of hon. Members raised questions about specific fish stocks. I suspect that they have raised those questions at the behest of fishing organisations such as the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisation and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. My ministerial colleagues and regularly I meet those two organisations. We have lengthy detailed discussions with them.
I make it clear to the House that their priorities are my priorities; their concerns and goals in the Fisheries Council are mine also. The detail that they give me about individual fish stocks is the detail that I hope to take forward and argue for in Brussels this week. In some instances, that will mean moderating the reduction in quotas that the Commission has suggested, and in other instances the quotas may be increased. I shall go to Brussels—I hope in co-operation and collaboration with the industry—to seek to address what the industry sees as its most important priorities.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend confirm the remarks that he made by way of intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in relation to marketing grants? He said that grants will be available to those at Fleetwood who have already applied for them and that they will be available to people in other ports who may apply for them in the future.

Mr. Baldry: As I told the House earlier, since my appointment as Fisheries Minister in July I have travelled

around the country from Newlyn to Newcastle and from Hastings to Hull meeting industry representatives and with hon. Members who take a close interest in the fishing industries in their constituencies. I have been very impressed by the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and others. They have argued strongly that at a time when quotas are being reduced—with good reason—we must continue to support the industry through harbour grants and marketing and processing grants. I understand their concerns and we have looked carefully for new funds for a number of grants schemes. I am pleased to announce that the national harbour grants scheme and the European Union structural measures for port facilities and marketing and processing will apply.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Baldry: I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's intervention: they will apply throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: I do not need to give way as I have confirmed that the grants will apply throughout the United Kingdom.
Returning to the quotas issue, I shall be arguing in the Council for quotas to be set at realistic levels that will do the least possible damage to the industry's prospects next year. I understand the argument that a number of hon. Members have made: of course we cannot expect the industry to cope with wildly varying quotas year upon year. After all, people have invested in their vessels and in their future; they cannot be expected to deal with wildly fluctuating quotas.
We should not try to remedy the damage caused by overfishing by cutting particular fish stocks severely in any one year. If stocks must be protected by reducing the fishing effort, I hope that that can be achieved over a period of years rather than by introducing severe yearly cuts. Badly depleted stocks must be rebuilt if we are to maintain a viable industry in the long term.

Mr. Gallie: A year or two ago there was a quota of 16,000 tonnes for prawns on the west coast of Scotland. The quota has been reduced in recent years, but the quality and the volume of the prawn catch has increased. Some have suggested that there are many prawns to be taken, although scientific evidence seems to refute that claim. Will my hon. Friend re-examine that issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) has already done this year?

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know that, because of the wishes of the Scottish fishing industry, we revisited that issue this year and achieved an increase in the quota for prawns. I hope that that increase will be reflected in the negotiations later this week.

Mr. Harris: I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend responded to the points that I and other Members have raised and assured the House that he would press for the priorities put forward by the industry. Can he give the House any information on another matter of concern to the industry on which representations have


been made? Is there any progress on the long-standing claims for compensation from Spain to fishermen from the south-west for the damage caused to their nets in the tuna war?

Mr. Baldry: In an earlier debate in the House, I promised to try to resolve the issue by Christmas. I am glad to inform the House that the Spanish Minister responsible for fishing has confirmed that United Kingdom fishermen will be offered compensation of £100,000 to be paid by the end of this year or early next year, so I hope that the House will feel that I have fulfilled my promise.

Mr. Salmond: May we return to tonight's inducement? If the Minister believed that the financial instrument for fisheries grant and the harbour grant scheme were so important, why did he agree three weeks ago to their cancellation?

Mr. Baldry: I never cease to be amazed at how ungrateful some Members can be. Here I am, the week before Christmas, restoring marketing, processing and harbour grants, and such an ingrate individual quibbles about it. The only person who is more ingrate than the hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who comes to the House complaining that not enough is done for fishing ports [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman never listens. I know of no more ungrateful Member than him. He complains to the House that not enough is spent on fishing ports when Grimsby is awash with money that the Government have invested in the port. Nearly £969,000 in Government fisheries grants will have been made available to Grimsby in two and a half years. That is the largest such allocation to any port in the United Kingdom. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman cannot recognise that.
Later this week I shall seek to ensure the best possible quotas and the best possible deal for the United Kingdom fishing industry, but consistent with the scientific advice which demonstrates that some of our fish stocks, such as North sea herring and mackerel, are in serious danger of collapse, which would be disastrous for the fishing industry, the processing industry and the consumer.

Mr. Allason: When my hon. Friend goes to the Fisheries Council on Thursday, will he raise the issue of quota hoppers and the abuse of the flags that is so obvious in the British registry?

Mr. Baldry: I certainly will not forget that. My hon. Friend quite rightly reminds the House of the problem of quota hoppers. We all share that concern. The Factortame judgment has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy—it is based on that principle of European law which allows the free association of individuals in different member states—but it is a matter of real and legitimate concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, who takes a close interest in promoting the interests of the fishing industry in the south-west, rightly continues to draw the issue to the attention of Ministers. He asked me to consult lawyers as to whether anything could be done about that judgment. I shall gladly draw together the lawyers in the fishing industry.
As I went round the ports of the United Kingdom, I issued a simple challenge. If any fishing industry representative has any sensible suggestions on how we

can get around the Factortame judgment, I shall gladly take them on board and willingly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that we take yet a further look at the issue.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I thank my hon. Friend most warmly for his visits to my constituency and the port of Brixham, where he has always been very welcome. Is it the Government's policy to try to reform the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Baldry: Yes. All hon. Members recognise that the common fisheries policy has a number of defects. However, we shall not support the totally meaningless garbage put forward in the Labour amendment. When the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was asked to explain what it meant, he was clearly incapable of giving any such explanation. No one in the House is satisfied with the existing common fisheries policy; it clearly needs to be reformed.

Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister recognise that many good Conservatives here tonight do not wish to give any comfort to the Labour party, but are deeply worried about the state of the fishing industry? Can the Minister say anything more about the robust stance that he will take at the Fisheries Council and British action that might be taken after the Council so that we stand up for British fishermen, not Spanish ones?

Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend can rest assured that my primary duty to the House is to represent and stand up for the interests of the British fishing industry. If at any time any Member can point to an occasion when I failed to stand up for the British fishing industry, I shall gladly vacate this place.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baldry: I should make some progress. I am determined that there should be an on-going dialogue between the fishing industry and scientists on the specific issue of quotas and I recognise there are real concerns that the industry is not being heard.
It is important that the fishing industry becomes more involved in what we are doing. Many in the fishing industry see the year-on-year debate on quotas as a somewhat blunt instrument for ensuring control of the fishing effort and believe that more can be done by way of technical conservation measures. For that reason, I am setting up a fisheries conservation group that will bring together Government scientists and other academics with representatives of the industry to examine issues on which there are concerns, such as industrial fishing and the level of discards and to find out what more can be achieved by improving fishing gear.
Not only do I intend that we should do that here in the United Kingdom, but one of my other objectives at the Fisheries Council meeting later this week is to ensure a clear commitment to technical conservation measures in respect of fishing gear. Progress also has to be made towards addressing widespread concerns about industrial fishing, discards and by-catching.
I assure hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that I shall be pressing the Fisheries Council for increases in the quotas proposed for the Irish sea. I fully appreciate the concerns of the Northern Irish industry about the Hague preference and of course we


shall continue to seek to reduce the disadvantages to Northern Ireland resulting from the Hague preference, for example by carrying out international quota swaps.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked whether the quota is still Government policy. It is and will continue to be Government policy. Members have been concerned that there should be equal and strict enforcement of EC fishery measures throughout the Community and we determined to ensure that.
Two concerns have run through this evening's debate. One is the common fisheries policy, where the Government need reforms. It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that we could leave the common fisheries policy. We should concentrate instead on reforming it in ways that would benefit the industry.
I find the Opposition amendment disingenuous in the extreme. Opposition Members play on the worst aspects of xenophobia. They criticise the Spanish, but forget that not a single Labour voice was raised against the accession of Spain or Portugal to the European Union. They criticised the Government for the deal that was achieved and clearly failed to read the Spanish treaty of accession, which stated that 300 vessels may be authorised to fish in western waters from the date of accession until 31 December this year. The result of the agreement that we achieved in December 1994 is that the number of Spanish vessels with access to the Irish box from 1 January will he not 300 but 40. That is a considerable deal on behalf of the United Kingdom fishing industry.
We do not need the Labour party to give us lessons on representing British interests. Anyone who is concerned about British interests should have regard to what the Labour party and other socialist parties signed up to this week in Madrid—a significant extension of qualified majority voting and restrictions on how long people can work. If those policies were implemented, we would be unable to represent best fishing interests.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 305.

Division No. 16]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Berry, Roger


Adams, Mrs Irene
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Alton, David
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyes, Roland


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'Dale)
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Austin-Walker, John
Burden, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Byers, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Callaghan, Jim


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell-Savours, D N


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F
Chidgey, David


Benton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bermingham, Gerald
Church, Judith





Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Margaret


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Hume, John


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kirkwood, Archy


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Fatchett, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Livingstone, Ken


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fisher, Mark
Llwyd, Elfyn


Flynn, Paul
Loyden, Eddie


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
McCartney, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
McCrea, The Reverend William


Galbraith, Sam
Macdonald, Calum


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McGrady, Eddie


Garrett, John
McKelvey, William


George, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gerrard, Neil
McLeish, Henry


Godman, Dr Norman A
Maclennan, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
McMaster, Gordon


Gordon, Mildred
McNamara, Kevin


Graham, Thomas
MacShane, Denis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Maddock, Diana


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallon, Seamus


Gunnell, John
Mandelson, Peter


Hain, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hall, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hanson, David
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hardy, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Harvey, Nick
Meacher, Michael


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Doug
Michael, Alun


Hendron, Dr Joe
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Heppell, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)






Milburn, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Miller, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Short, Clare


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Simpson, Alan


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mudie, George
Spellar, John


Mullin, Chris
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Murphy, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Stevenson, George


O'Hara, Edward
Stott, Roger


Olner, Bill
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Straw, Jack


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Parry, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Pearson, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pendry, Tom
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Pickthall, Colin
Timms, Stephen


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Trimble, David


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tyler, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Vaz, Keith


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Primarolo, Dawn
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Purchase, Ken
Wallace, James


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Randall, Stuart
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Welsh, Andrew


Redmond, Martin
Wicks, Malcolm


Reid, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wilson, Brian


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wise, Audrey


Rogers, Allan
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Salmond, Alex
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alexander, Richard
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Booth, Hartley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Bright, Sir Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, John (Luton North)





Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Churchill, Mr
Hayes, Jerry


Clappison, James
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Faber, David
Knox, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fishburn, Dudley
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Legg, Barry


Forth, Eric
Leigh, Edward


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lidington, David


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lilley, Fit Hon Peter


French, Douglas
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Gale, Roger
Lord, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Luff, Peter


Gardiner, Sir George
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garnier, Edward
MacKay, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Gillen, Cheryl
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Madel, Sir David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gorst, Sir John
Major, Rt Hon John


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Malone, Gerald


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
 Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Sir Michael
Marlow, Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hannam, Sir John
Merchant, Piers


Hargreaves, Andrew
Mills, Iain






Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Spink, Dr Robert


Moate, Sir Roger
Spring, Richard


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Steen, Anthony


Nelson, Anthony
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sumberg, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sykes, John


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pickles, Eric
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trend, Michael


Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheelaer, Rt Hon Sir John


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shersby, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Young, Rt Hon Sire George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question Put:—

The House divided:Ayes 297, Noes 299.

Division No. 17]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Aspinwall, Jack


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)





Bates, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bellingham, Henry
French, Doughlas


Bendall, Vivian
Gale, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gallie, Phil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gorst, Sir John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Sir Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Burt, Alistair
Hannam, Sir John


Butcher, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harries, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Flt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hickes, Robert


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Congdon, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Doughlas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph(N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Key, Robert


Durant, Sir Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Fit Hon Sir Peter
Knapman, Roger


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfied)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg Derby N)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, Sir David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fishburn, Dudley
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, R Hon Sir Norman
Lidington, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)






Lord, Michael
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Luff, Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsy)


Mackay, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Shersby, Sir Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sims, Roger


Madel, Sir David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Major, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Soames, Nicholas


Mans, Keith
Speed, Sir Keith


Marland, Paul
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Mates, Michael
Spring, Richard


Mawhinnney, Rt hon Dr Brian
Sproat, Iain


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stanley, RT Hon Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Steen, Anthony


Mills, Iain
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stem, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Stewart, Allan


Moate, Sir Roger
Streeter, Gary


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sykes, John


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patrick, Sir Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gererd


Patten, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Riddick, Graham
Whittingdale, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Widdecombe, Ann


Robathan, Andrew
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f?ld)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Derek Conway




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Austin-Walker, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Alton, David
Barnes, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barron, Kevin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Battle, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Bayley, Hugh





Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bennett, Andrew F
Foulkes, George


Benton, Joe
Fraser, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Roger
Galbraith, Sam


Betts, Clive
Galloway, George


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John


Boateng, Paul
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gerrard, Neil


Bradley, Keith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gordon, Mildred


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Graham, Thomas


Burden, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Byers, Stephen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hall, Mike


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hanson, David


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Harman, Ms Harriet


Carttiss, Michael
Harvey, Nick


Cash, William
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Chidgey, David
Henderson, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hendron, Dr Joe


Church, Judith
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Margaret


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coffey, Ann
Honn, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cox, Tom
Hume, John


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Cory SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda H'stead)


Cunningham, Roseanna
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Daring, Alistair
Jones, Barry (Alyb and D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tra)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Jones, Jon Owen Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn Clwyd, SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Denham, John
Jowell, Tessa


Dewar, Donald
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dixon, Don
Keen, Alan


Dobson, Frank
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane L'pool Br'dg'n)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Kirkwood, Archy


Eastham, Ken
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lewis, Terry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Fatchett, Derek
Litherland, Robert


Faulds, Andrew
Livingstone, ken


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Fisher, Mark
Llwyd, Elfyn






Loyden, Eddie
Randall, Stuart


Lynne, Ms Liz
Raynsford, Nick


McAllion, John
Redmond, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Reid, Dr John


McCartney, Ian
Rendel, David


McCartney, Robert
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


McCrea, The Reverend William
Robinson, Groffrey (Co'try NW)


Macdonald, Calum
Robinson, Peter Belfast E)


McFall, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McGrady, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


McKelvey, William
Rooker, Jeff


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McLeish, Henry
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Robert
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salmond, Alex


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWilliam, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maddock, Diana
Short, Clare


Mahon, Alice
Simpson, Alan


Mallon, Seamus
Skinner, Dennis


Mendelson, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michael, Alun
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stoot, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Straw, Jack


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mowlam, Marjorie
Touhig, Don


Mudie, George
Trimble, David


Mullin, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Murphy, Paul
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


O'Hara, Edward
Wallace, James


Olner, Bill
Walley, Joan


O'Neill, Martin
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wareing, Robert N


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Parry, Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Pearson, Ian
Wigley, Dafydd


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan Sw'n W)


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Alan W Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L
Wilson, Brian


Pope, Greg
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wray, Jimmy


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wright, Dr Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Purchase, Ken
Tellers for the Noes;


Quin, Ms Joyce
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Radice, Giles
Mr, Robert Ainsworth

Question accordingly negatived.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have

listened carefully to the opinions that have been expressed, often with great vigour, in the debate. The Government will give due weight to what has been said. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will represent the United Kingdom at the Fisheries Council beginning on 21 December. He will, as always, vigorously represent the interests of the United Kingdom and its fishermen. In particular, he will fight for effective conservation of fish stocks, a fair allocation of fishing opportunities, and rigorous enforcement of the controls that are in place.

Dr. Strang: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. That is just not good enough. The House of Commons has taken an historic decision. It has passed a motion rejecting—[Interruption.] It has failed. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I will not allow further debate on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has a point of order, I must of course hear it.

Dr. Strang: The Government have been defeated. That is the important point. It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that Ministers will pay due attention. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House listened to the Minister and what he said was not precisely a point of order. Hon. Members will be tolerant and will listen to the hon. Gentleman for a moment.

Dr. Strang: The House has rejected the Government's position on fisheries policy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not take part in the debate and he cannot just jump up to the Dispatch Box and tell us that the Government will pay due attention. They have to address the issues in the debate, and they relate to the additional access of Spanish fishing vessels to our western waters. There has been a repudiation of the Government's policy and the Government are answerable to the House. They have lost the confidence of the House in relation to representing our interests in the European Union in fisheries and also in relation to their whole approach to fisheries policy. It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about what will happen in the Fisheries Council.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are experienced parliamentarians. Proper points of order are not being put to me and I cannot allow the debate to continue in this way. I propose to move to the next item of business.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a genuine point of order?

Mr. Beith: It is. I hope that you will confirm that a Government motion setting out the Government's negotiating position has been defeated and that when a Minister goes to Brussels to take part in negotiations he cannot represent the position that is set out in that motion as being the position that was approved by the House. He will have to convey to the meeting the fact that the House rejects the Government's position and wants a stronger stand, and he will have to make clear to the meeting that he has lost the confidence of the House, as have his Government.

Mr. Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Should not we ask for a Government statement


tomorrow? The Government have failed to carry their position on a vital industry. The Minister told us that that does not matter and that the Government will carry on as before. Does that not represent contempt for the House in the same way as contempt for the fishing communities has been the Government's undoing?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The House also rejected the Labour-Liberal amendment.

Madam Speaker: Order. The debate has taken place and the House has made its views known in a Division. It is now up to the Government to determine their position. I now propose to move to other business. [Interruption.] Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Consolidated Fund (No.2) Act 1995
Church of Scotland (Property and Endowment) Amendment Order Confirmation Act 1995

Scottish Business

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,

That—
(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows:
line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';
line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';
line 33, at the end, add—
'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.';
(2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows:
line 8, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 9 and insert 'Scotland';
line 19, leave out from 'No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert 'Member except the Minister of the Crown';
line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert 'Members';
line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member';
(3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows:
line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';
line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert 'so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';
line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';
line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';
line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert 'Member of the House';
line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer';
(4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs:
'(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
(8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.
(9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.';
(5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows:
line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';
line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,';
(6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and
(7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows:
line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';
line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'.
The motion gives effect to two of the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in the House on the eve of St. Andrew's day for strengthening the role of the Scottish Grand Committee in considering Scottish legislation and in calling Ministers to account. There is little that I need to add to the full explanation that my right hon. Friend gave on that occasion. I shall deal first with the two principal amendments to the Standing Orders.
The new paragraph that is to be added to Standing Order No. 94A will allow any Minister, and not just Ministers representing Scottish constituencies, to attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland as well as at Westminster, to take part in the Committee's proceedings and move motions but not to vote or to be counted in the quorum. Consequential amendments will enable the Committee to hear ministerial statements and transact other business relating to the Scottish aspects of the work of other Departments as well as the Scottish Office.
As my right hon. Friend said, both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to take part in the Committee's debates in Scotland next year, and I am sure that other Ministers who have responsibility for significant areas of policy will be keen to follow suit.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have no objection to Ministers attending

meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, which is taking on some of the appurtenances of a travelling circus. When visiting other cities and towns, Back Benchers should have access to the normal office facilities that are readily available in this place and in Edinburgh. The record so far is not good and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers in the Scottish Office will take that on board. In terms of access to telephones and other facilities, that complaint needs to be examined by the Leader of the House and his colleagues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind hon. Members that this is a one-and-a-half-hour debate and that long interventions do not help.

Mr. Newton: Despite your wise advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that that is the sort of issue that I always undertake to consider, and I know that my right hon. Friends will also consider it. We have imposed quite a demanding task on the House authorities who have to arrange these meetings and the facilities that are required. To that extent, I am sure that they are feeling their way, but no one would want to dismiss out of hand the hon. Gentleman's point, especially about telephone access. It is obviously difficult to see how full-scale office facilities can be organised on quite the basis that he suggested.
The new paragraph to be added to Standing Order No. 94E will allow the Scottish Grand Committee to debate the principle of a Scottish Bill at Third Reading as well as at Second Reading. The procedure to be followed is broadly similar to that for Second Reading, with which the Committee is familiar. What is envisaged is that, after its Report stage, a Bill will be referred again to the Committee for a debate of up to one and a half hours, which, again, may take place in Scotland. A longer debate can be arranged if that is thought desirable. The Question on Third Reading would then be decided by the House without further debate, as a "forthwith".
The Government are taking the opportunity afforded by this debate to propose three other minor and sensible amendments to the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 94D allows a maximum of 45 minutes for a ministerial statement that is made to facilitate the questioning of a Minister about some aspect of his responsibilities. We are proposing to provide additional flexibility by giving the Committee power to fix a different time limit if the circumstances of a Committee sitting make that appropriate. That could, for example, allow the Lord Advocate, or my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible for agriculture, forestry and the environment, to make a short statement and be questioned for, say, 15 minutes immediately after the normal Question Time. That would usefully extend the "flexibility", to use that word again, of the ways in which the Committee can operate.
We propose to amend Standing Order No. 94H to make it clear that the half-hour Adjournment debate, which normally starts at 1 o'clock, can begin earlier than that if the other business to be taken at that sitting has already been completed. [Interruption.] I am not pretending that these proposals are earth shattering—they are tidying-up proposals. In that case, the Adjournment debate will not be interrupted at 1 o'clock and will be concluded


30 minutes after it has begun. That reflects the clear intention of the Standing Order and is, I think in everyone's view, obviously sensible.
Finally, we propose to amend Standing Order No. 91 on Special Standing Committees, which provides for three morning sittings for taking oral evidence, so that a Scottish Special Standing Committee that is taking evidence in Scotland is not restricted to holding morning sittings only. That allows the Special Standing Committee to make more efficient use of its time by, for example, meeting in the morning and the afternoon of the same day. The Special Standing Committee that considered last Session's Children (Scotland) Bill was given that flexibility on an ad hoc basis and found it useful. We are now trying to incorporate that in the Standing Order.
The remaining amendments are consequential. The whole package is overwhelmingly sensible. I know that it has been widely welcomed in Scotland and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has just said, the procedural motions that the Leader of the House has moved are as welcome as the Government's fisheries policies, which have just been defeated. The Leader of the House drew the short straw this evening because, far from having the support that he suggested, the procedural changes please, I think, no one. Certainly, they do not satisfy the official Opposition or find favour with the minority parties.
I am not sure about the Government's Back Benchers, but the people of Scotland are not impressed by the changes. In many ways, that is not surprising, given the way in which those changes have come about. The way in which they saw the light of day and were launched is completely contrary to the way in which the Leader of the House believes that we should proceed when we consider constitutional changes. Clearly, he adopts a different style from that of the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the Leader of the House likes to consult, to discuss issues and to find a common basis for a way forward. That has simply not been the case in relation to these changes.
The reason for that is clear: the procedural changes are a product of panic on the part of Ministers. The reason for that is also clear. For 16 years, Conservative Ministers have derided Opposition Members for saying that constitutional change was needed in relation to Scotland. Ministers have been telling us that all was well and that the present arrangements were satisfactory. At the last election, we all, I think, remember the Prime Minister and others issuing alarmist warnings about the consequences of devolution and telling us how good the constitutional position was then—and now—yet we are now going to have some change.
As everyone knows, in November, the Prime Minister gave what was considered to be an important, exclusive interview to The Independent. That was another of those occasions where we had to wonder who had been in government for the past 16 years. These days, it is increasingly a feature of Ministers that, when a problem arises, they say that something should be done: recently, we have been told that something should be done about crime, knives and education standards. They say that something should be done about a problem as if they were

in opposition, and have suddenly discovered the problem and a rod with which to beat the Government. They talk like that rather than like Ministers who have been in government for 16 years, because they want the public to forget that they have run out of excuses. That is the style at present and that was the Prime Minister's style when he gave that interview reported in The Independent.
Suddenly, the Prime Minister seemed to have discovered a problem in relation to the Scots. In the article, he said:
People in Scotland, who often feel cut off from parliamentary debate in London want better access to government.
That does not quite sound like what he was saying at the last election. He went on:
the Scots feel that Westminster is a long way off".
His comments in that interview were made not because he had discovered a new problem but because, at last, he was acknowledging a problem that everyone, apart from Ministers, knew existed and that he had denied existed, even during the last election.
That about-turn by the Prime Minister in acknowledging that the problem exists might be welcomed if he had shown any understanding of what the democratic deficit amounts to. Unfortunately, if one continues reading the article in The Independent, one begins to wonder if he understands anything at all about that problem. He claims in the interview:
"We"—
the Government—
have made quite significant moves on Scotland … I have changed the basis on which the honours list is determined".
If that is a signal of what fundamental, significant change means to the Prime Minister, it illustrates simply how far his education is lacking with regard to the problems that Scottish people face.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Does the hon. Lady agree with the proposition that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in it, and would she extend that proposition to the English Grand Committee, for which, as will be familiar to her, there are provisions in Standing Orders?

Mrs. Taylor: There is no future in the Government's proposal because it does not deal with basic needs. The solution to what the Secretary of State wants and to the problem that exists is to have a properly devolved Scottish Parliament. We make no bones, and have been utterly consistent, about that. We said it at the last election and we will say it at the next one.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is the hon. Lady saying that if there were an incoming Labour Government, they would immediately reverse the proposals now before the House?

Mrs. Taylor: If there were an incoming Labour Government, which there will be, we shall have a Scottish Parliament—and I am glad to have the chance to repeat that statement from the Dispatch Box. Instead, we have before us some half-baked suggestions by Ministers who have been trying to cobble together at the last minute a smokescreen to suggest that they are actually doing something. But the Government are not fooling anyone.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Lady referred to comments supposedly made by the Prime Minister before


the general election, but, at that time, was she herself not saying that there would be a Labour Government after that election?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a member of a party that stands at something like 13 per cent. in the opinion polls in Scotland, and that did about as well as that in the most recent local elections there. I do not think that we should take too many lectures about what is likely to happen from people with that amount of support in Scotland. Moreover, I quoted not what the Prime Minister allegedly said but from his interview in The Independent. If the hon. Gentleman has not seen the article, I shall be happy to send him a copy later.
Against that background—the panic action and the sudden acceptance of a problem, the about-turn by the Prime Minister—a statement was made to the House on 29 November. It was strong on hype but weak on substance. We were told beforehand that the statement would be very significant, and would be what the Scottish people wanted, but when it came to the point it all fell flat. The fact that this evening the Leader of the House has been able to summarise in so few words the changes being introduced shows that there is not much substance in them.
As the Leader of the House explained, any House of Commons Minister will be allowed to go to the Scottish Grand Committee—the "awayday feature", as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) called it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to clarify two matters arising from that fact.
First, I understand that the Government Scottish Whip has not invariably been a Scottish Member. In that case, would such a Whip be allowed on the Floor of the Committee? Secondly, and more important, the right hon. Gentleman says that Ministers "may" attend the Scottish Grand Committee, but who will decide whether they do attend? Will the Committee have the power to summon a Minister and insist that he appear before it, or can the Minister decide to delegate the appearance to a junior? For example, if a deregulation issue is on the agenda, will the Deputy Prime Minister attend, or will he say that someone else will attend in his stead?
There are more outstanding questions. The Leader of the House has mentioned only non-controversial Bills; he has not covered controversial legislation. The Government are not creating something dramatically different but simply extending the talking-shop facility of the Scottish Grand Committee. They are not by any means opening the way for Scottish people to have more control over the decisions now made by Scottish Office Ministers.
I am sure that the Leader of the House is not really comfortable with the proposals that he has had to make, any more than he is happy with the way in which those decisions were reached. I should have thought that he might be worried about the precedent of introducing procedural change into the House without consultation. It certainly goes against the grain of all that he has told us on other issues.
If the Government were serious about tackling the problems with which the procedural motions are supposed to deal, Ministers should have been considering the remarkable achievement of the Scottish Constitutional

Convention, which achieved a consensus on a way forward, and which involved different political parties, elected members from Westminster and from local authorities, and people from outside politics. Surely that is the way forward, and Ministers should have thought about it before trying to bounce ideas on to the House.
The approach of the Scottish Constitutional Convention provides a good example of the necessary pre-legislative consultation that I think we should all be considering if we want to improve the quality of legislation in general. If the Government were serious about recognising the constitutional problems that Scotland and the rest of Britain face, Ministers would have followed the line laid out by the constitutional convention, and would not have bounced their half-baked ideas on to this Parliament or the Scottish people.

Sir Hector Monro: I suppose that we expected a pretty churlish response from the Opposition spokesmen to this important evolution of the procedures of the House, involving the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) could not even bring herself to welcome something that is already getting a mounting press in Scotland. Representatives of the press and the other media are now coming to the meetings, and are beginning to understand that what the Secretary of State has proposed is really a major step forward in bringing Government to the people of Scotland.
The media are also beginning to understand that the panic is in the ranks of the Opposition—the panic that we have got it right. The Lady mentioned the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but that is made up of only two parties, and it seemed to spend most of the weeks in which it met squabbling. It has never answered the questions that really matter. That is why the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is becoming more tetchy and rattled week by week, as his plans for an Assembly are being rumbled.
The hon. Gentleman will not receive any confidence from the Scottish people until he is prepared to stand at the Dispatch Box, or anywhere else, and answer the West Lothian question: how many Members of Parliament would the Labour party have in Scotland, and how would they arrange voting on measures for which not the Scottish Assembly but the Westminster Parliament is responsible? In recent weeks the hon. Gentleman has made no effort to answer the question that has been asked not only by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but by many other members of the Conservative party in Scotland. He must wake up—

Mr. George Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman must answer the question.

Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I shall give way only if the hon. Gentleman promises to answer the question. Will he do so? I see that he will not, so I shall not give way. That is too bad. He may have the chance to speak later, when he winds up for the Opposition.


Really good ideas are coming forward, with the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Scotland and carrying out many useful tasks, so that the people can see us and can meet Ministers, including English Ministers, who come to address the Committee.
I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Minister one or two practical questions that he may be prepared to think about. He is right to say that the House authorities have moved heaven and earth to ease any difficulties, whether we meet in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness or anywhere else—which I am glad to do. I know that the usual channels have used their best endeavours to ensure that there is light voting on days when the Committee meets far from the central belt. If we meet in Inverness—as we shall, and I shall be glad to do so—Back Benchers, and indeed Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, may have to go there on Sunday night. We cannot guarantee to be on parade at 10.30 on Monday morning unless we do that, especially in winter when the weather in Scotland can be bad.
I should therefore like my right hon. Friend to consider integrating the work of the House of Commons more closely with that of the Scottish Grand Committee so that, if possible, we meet on a Monday on which there is light business in Westminster so that we can return with our motor cars or whatever to our home bases and start out again. This is an important practical point which we must try to work at if we are to improve the logistics of meeting in various venues in Scotland, which I believe is an excellent idea. Another minor but important point is that we should be able to simplify our travelling, hotel and incidental expenses, for which we currently have to apply to different parts of the House of Commons for completion.
I have been a member of the Scottish Grand Committee for many years, including the days when we had to make up the numbers to have a majority. The steps we have now taken to deal with non-controversial legislation are quite excellent. More importantly, we shall be able to get more business through the House via the Scottish Grand Committee than if we had to go through the full procedure of Second Reading on the Floor of the House, Standing Committee, and so on. All in all, Scotland can look forward to additional constructive legislation, particularly legislation relating to some of the Law Commission reports which often have to be put aside because there is no time to debate them in the House of Commons.
I believe that we are right to bring forward these amendments to the Standing Orders, and I warmly support them. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to consider the practical ways in which he can assist Members of Parliament to attend the Scottish Grand Committee with greater facility than is possible at present.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) made an important point about the facilities—or lack of them—that we shall have when we move around the country. The lack of facilities is not the fault of the local authorities, each and every one of which has given excellent hospitality. It is not always easy for a local authority or a town hall to rearrange its facilities to suit 72 Members of Parliament and other staff.
Lord Provost Thomas Dingwall should be congratulated, as every officer at the city chambers gave us every facility. The Lord Provost laid on lunch at his

expense, not only for hon. Members but for all the back-up staff, including the Hansard staff and the badge messengers. That was appreciated. Nonetheless, if we have to travel the length and breadth of the country—I have no objection to that—it must be recognised that we also have to look after our constituents. The phone often rings on a Sunday night and hon. Members are asked to chase up urgent matters on the Monday, and I had that experience before I went to Edinburgh. In those circumstances, an hon. Member must be able to get to a phone or a fax while he is at the Scottish Grand Committee if he is to assist in an immigration problem or to help during an eviction.

Dr. Godman: The council officials—including the Lord Provost—were very kind and hospitable, but precisely the problem that my hon. Friend is now outlining prompted my complaint. I, too, was dealing with an urgent constituency matter and I had to wait eight minutes for a Scottish Office official to finish using the telephone.

Mr. Martin: My hon. Friend again makes an important point. If Scottish Members are to be tied up in the Committee until 1.30 pm on a Monday, we must have the back-up facilities to allow us to get on with the work that our constituents expect us to do. Parking facilities are also important, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, raised a very important point. The amendment to the Standing Orders states:
Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.
I am not trying to put obstacles in the way of the Leader of the House, but the House is saying that we, as Scottish Members, have the Grand Committee exclusively for us. However, the amendment states that the Conservative Whip will be allowed to sit in the body of the hall. I do not think that that should be the case. I take the view that, as there are a few Scottish Tory Back-Bench Members left, they should pick their Whip for the Grand Committee.
We have a Member from the Scottish National party in the Chamber now, and I have stated my views about nationalism. I despise the terms English and Scottish and, while I am proud of my culture, I hope that I would never express that in a way that discriminates against people. I do not want to have a go at English Members of Parliament, but my complaint does not relate to a person's nationality.
Members representing Scottish seats should be in the Scottish Grand Committee, while Members representing English, Welsh or Irish seats should not. I do not think that the Conservative Whip should be within the body of the hall because his job is different from that of a Government Minister. The Whip's job is to rustle up votes and to tell people to stop speaking.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated dissent.

Mr. Martin: The Secretary of State shakes his head, and suggests that that is not the Whip's purpose. It does not matter whether the Secretary of State has good intentions and I accept that in this case his intentions are


good as he wants to improve the facility. But once we put the matter into black and white, someone will be able to come along later and see it as an abuse.
What happens when we leave the House and some other people take our places? If there are no Tory Back-Bench Members left in Scotland at that time, somebody may suggest that half a dozen Tory Whips—who will have nothing else to do with their time—should join the Committee debates, make speeches and put down motions. I know that the intention of the amendment is to get Ministers of the Crown to come along to the Committee and make statements so that we can scrutinise the work that they are doing. But the amendment is open to abuse. I mean no disrespect to the present Whip, but he does not represent a Scottish seat and I would hope that the amendment will not allow him into the body of the hall.
The Leader of the House should consider the provision which allows a Minister of the Crown who is not a Minister of this House but of the other place to make statements. I must ask that once those Ministers and Ministers of the Crown who are not members of the Scottish Grand Committee have finished their business in the Committee, they should take no further part in the proceedings. A Minister can come along and take part in the proceedings of the Committee, but we know that Ministers normally say or do nothing other than deal with the matter for which they are responsible. May we have an assurance that once a Minister has finished that part of his business—for example, ministerial questions—he will take no further part in the proceedings of the Grand Committee?

Mr. Phil Gallie: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), whose leading and valued role as Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee is, in the main, much appreciated.
In welcoming these changes to our Standing Orders, I draw attention to comments that I and other Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidates made at the time of the last general election, when we suggested that a new Conservative Government should increase the importance and activities of the Grand Committee. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) might like to know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave us a commitment to that effect at the time. He had clearly looked ahead even before the general election.
We also considered the role of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee; I and other colleagues offered a commitment to its reinstatement—and that is what has taken place since 1992. Under the able chairmanship of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) it has played a valuable role in the affairs of Scotland, as evidenced by some of the excellent reports it has drawn up on drugs, enterprise companies and other subjects.
I welcome the fact, too, that the Committee will move around the country. It is important to let people throughout Scotland witness the Government's activities. I have noted that meetings held in Edinburgh and Glasgow are usually quite well attended, but I was disappointed to find that Labour Members did not turn up

in large numbers in Aberdeen. It seems to me that Labour Members tend to concentrate on central belt issues instead of recognising Scotland's wider needs. If we stick with the policy of moving around, perhaps we shall eventually get the point through to them.
I agree with the hon. Members for Springburn and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about facilities. We really must have telephones and faxes at the various venues.
The amendments to Standing Orders refer also to the Grand Committee dealing with Bills. Last year, Second Reading of the Children (Scotland) Bill was taken in the Committee, whereupon a Special Standing Committee was set up to examine the details. These proposals follow on from that and open the door to further progress; Third Readings will be taken in the Scottish Grand Committee—that will be most welcome to all hon. Members.
On 29 November the Secretary of State said that a timetable of our sittings would be established, and one has since been drawn up for eight meetings to consider Government business. I understand that a timetable for four Opposition motions is being prepared as well. That, too, is welcome. It is important to set dates in advance so as to allow hon. Members to make arrangements around them. I can see no reference in the motions to this aspect of the matter, however. Perhaps the Minister will give it some consideration in winding up the debate.
The Special Standing Committee procedure is to be used again for the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. That is most welcome. The Committee is due to come to Ayr not long hence to discuss raves and drug misuse.
Above all, I welcome the intention to invite United Kingdom Ministers whose departmental remits include responsibilities for Scottish affairs. I agree with the hon. Member for Springburn that such Ministers should have no voting rights in the Grand Committee, as is well established under our rules, but it will be beneficial to invite Ministers from the Department of Transport, the Department of Social Security and—given that so many people work for the defence industry in Scotland—from the Ministry of Defence. That will boost Scottish involvement in our national affairs. It will be particularly pleasing to see the Prime Minister in the Committee. That will be a reminder that he is Prime Minister not just of the United Kingdom but of each of its nation states.
On a more generous note, perhaps we should recognise that the Leader of the Opposition might have an important part to play. We should open up the doors to him on future occasions if he can come in his role as Leader of the Opposition—a role I hope he will continue to play for many years to come.

Mr. Newton: Does my hon. Friend envisage, in the world picture that he is painting, that the Leader of the Opposition would have to answer some questions?

Mr. Gallie: No, but it would only be fair to allow him to ask questions. I believe that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is rather uninformed about Scottish matters, and it would do him the world of good to spend some time in the Scottish Grand Committee. I understand, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman recently attended a dinner—Opposition Members might have called it an elitist dinner—addressed also by the hon. Member for


Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). The right hon. Member for Sedgefield made a speech at the dinner; its major sponsors, Global Video, placed an advertisement in the programme containing the words:
Wouldn't you rather be at home watching a video?
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take that message to heart when he considers some of the Opposition's madcap ideas for imposing a tax-raising Assembly on Scotland. The people of Scotland certainly do not want a tartan tax. The idea is being pushed by the hon. Member for Hamilton, but the right hon. Member for Sedgefield should travel up to Scotland a bit more to learn that the Scottish people do not want the option that he is attempting to force on them.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I was interested to hear the views of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), but I really do hope that we will not start head counting at Monday morning meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. That might bring the whole process into some disrepute. To that extent I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman, and I disagreed with all his other suggestions as well.
I welcome these changes—as far as they go. It is certainly an improvement to be given notice of the dates for well into the new year. This has always been a difficulty for the minority parties. Discussions are held through the usual channels, but latterly they have become rather clogged up. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has cut through all that. He has set a timetable up to the summer, which everyone will welcome. Of course there are difficulties in travelling, but as long as the logistics can be sorted out there will be benefits. The Committee's deliberations will be taken to different parts of Scotland, which I welcome. The changes will give us more time and opportunity to consider some of the questions that are to the fore of public life north of the border.
The Leader of the House is a reasonable and enlightened man.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I was just saying the same about the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is the end of both our careers.
The Leader of the House has not been in charge of the Government's programme throughout their term of office but, after 16 years, to introduce these changes as the answer to the constitutional deficit north of the border is inadequate. To describe them as inadequate is an understatement of some proportion. They do not measure up to what needs to be done.
If there is one thing that illustrates my point better than any other, it is the way in which the Government treat the different but very real problems of the Province of Northern Ireland. There is no suggestion that they will tinker with Standing Orders or that a Grand Committee will meet in Enniskillen, Derry or other parts of Northern Ireland. That is in stark contrast to the way in which they are coping with the situation in Scotland.

Mr. George Robertson: Standing Order No. 99 states that there should be a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. It has two subsections. However, the Government's response to the situation in Northern Ireland, as the hon.

Gentleman rightly says, is not to beef up that Committee up with another five pages of amendments and the possibility of UK or Scottish Ministers going over there but to create a legislative assembly for Northern Ireland with 90 members and full legislative powers. People understand that distinction and the contrast and hypocrisy in the Government's position.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that whoever will reply to the debate will address that point.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated assent.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am pleased that the Secretary of State will deal with that point, which is in many people's minds and deserves an answer.
Are these changes all that we will get? Is this the beginning of a continuing process? If it is, my hon. Friends and I are interested in engaging in it; but if this is all that we are to get for all time, it is completely inadequate and does not begin to measure up to the possibilities for constitutional reform north of the border.
There are other questions about the detail of the changes that need to be addressed. Will this end the difficult process, which we have experienced more and more in recent years, of small Scottish sections being added to principally English Bills? As a legal practitioner in a previous incarnation, I know that the situation was becoming impossible even before 1983 when I was elected. It has worsened since. Will the Secretary of State comment on that matter of continuing concern? Will the changes provide more time for effective scrutiny and deal with the important question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who hoped, as I do, that the proposals of the Scottish Law Commission will get a better hearing under this process than previously? If that proves to be so, it will be a significant advantage.
It is not clear who will control the access of UK and English Ministers, Prime Ministers and Chancellors who will come to give us the benefit of their views. Will that be entirely under the control of the Government or will we be able to negotiate it through the usual channels? Will the Committee be able to vote to require or request—or, indeed, reject—the attendance of a UK Minister? The process and the arrangements that will have to be made for that are not clear.
I welcome the fact that we will be able to return to questions of principle on Third Reading of Bills. Does that mean that we will be able to discuss things that are not in the Bill, as amended, at that stage? At present, we would not be in order if we discussed something that was not in the Bill on Third Reading. If we will now be able to discuss matters of principle, that gives us the opportunity to consider things that are not in the Bill, as amended, on Third Reading in a way that we cannot at the moment. I would value some advice on that.

Mr. Newton: It may help if I say a brief, off-the-cuff word about that. As always, it is up to the occupant of the Chair to decide what is in or out of order in a speech. That is the basic point. I would not envisage anything being in order in a Third Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee that would be out of order in such a debate in the House. I guess that a passing reference to regretting that something was not in the Bill might be in


order but that an attempt to have an elaborate discussion on it would not be. Those are the normal rules of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the Leader of the House will give that further and better consideration. If the suggestion enshrined in the proposals is to mean anything and we are to have discussion in principle of the contents of the Bill on Third Reading, I do not understand how the situation that he has described could obtain.

Mr. Newton: I do not wish to make a huge issue of this, but we are talking about a Third Reading debate and the opportunity to have it in the Scottish Grand Committee rather than on the Floor of the House. Apart from that, it is no different.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Third Reading of the Children (Scotland) Bill, for example, took 20 minutes. If we are to take proper advantage of the new procedure we should be able to discuss things in principle on Third Reading. Obviously, this is a matter for the occupant of the Chair in any particular circumstance, but I believe that it is out of order to discuss things that are not in the Bill, as amended, on Third Reading. If we are to discuss things in principle, we should be able to do precisely that. There is confusion about that in my mind, if in no one else's. Perhaps the Leader of the House could give the matter further consideration.
The initiative, if that is not an overstatement of the amendments to Standing Orders, is a recognition by the Government that things need to change north of the border. If the Secretary of State is saying that the proposals are a first step to trying to do things better—to improve the quality of Scottish legislation, to provide more time, to have more effective scrutiny, better public access and more publicity for what we are doing north of the border—then we are signed up for it and we support it. If he does not take the initiative forward and it is not the start of a process of change, then what is before us tonight is not, by itself, worth having.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made some general points with which he would not expect me to agree, but he has asked some interesting questions about how the proposed procedures would work.
This is a short and largely technical debate. I take the view already expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) that these are sensible, practical changes. They are changes within the framework of the Union.
I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that to defend the Union—at the last general election, or, for that matter, at previous ones—is not to say that the Union is cast permanently in stone in respect of its institutions. That is an absurd position to take.
Conservative Governments introduced the Scottish Office and the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. At some stage, the hon. Member for Dewsbury or her colleagues must answer the key question about their attitude to the proposals: what could a Labour

Government do with their Scottish Parliament that they could not do with these proposals, given a Labour majority in this House, except increase taxes in Scotland? Under Labour's proposals, the advantage of directly questioning major Ministers such as the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Defence would be lost.

Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman's argument has often been deployed by the Secretary of State in defence of these proposals. The hon. Gentleman seems to accept that the proposals are inadequate under a Conservative Government because, although the Committee may vote in one way, the House can overturn that vote. Curiously, he seems to argue that the proposals can work only if we have a Labour Government. Is that the best argument that a Conservative Back Bencher can advance in support of these proposals?

Mr. Stewart: I am not arguing that for a moment. Assuming that a Labour Government would want to introduce a Scottish Parliament, I asked the hon. Member for Dewsbury what a Labour Government would do in the several years between an election and introducing a Scottish Parliament, but I received no answer whatever. The proposals are entirely workable under a Conservative or Labour Government, but what would a Labour Government achieve with a Scottish Parliament that they could not achieve with these proposals if they had a majority in this House? At some stage, Opposition Front Benchers must answer that question.
I emphasise the importance of extra question periods, which would have an inherently greater advantage than set-piece debates. Set-piece debates tend to be predictable—

Mr. John Home Robertson: This is one of them.

Mr. Stewart: Except when I am speaking, but I shall not go down that path. Moreover, they do not provide much opportunity for Back Benchers because such a high proportion of time is inevitably taken up by the two Front Bench spokesmen at the beginning and end of such debates. The key feature of the new proposals is the increase in the proportion of time devoted to questions.
Will my right hon. Friend answer three points of detail? First, do the proposals increase Scottish Members' opportunities to enact private Members' Bills, which, on the Floor of the House, could be stopped for reasons unrelated to the merits of the Bill? I hope that he can reassure all Back Benchers that he will consider that matter positively.
Secondly, may I support the point about facilities made by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). If the proposals are to work, it must be accepted that facilities such as telephones and fax machines are not for the personal convenience of Members but because our constituents, who might normally expect to find us in our constituencies on a Monday morning, may want to be in touch with us urgently about the kind of important issue to which the hon. Member for Springburn referred.
Thirdly, on the timing of Committee meetings, my right hon. Friend should not regard 10.30 am as a sacrosanct starting time as the Committee now travels to different


parts of Scotland. It would be sensible to have a different starting time depending on precisely where the Committee meets.

Dr. Godman: Another problem that the Leader of the House has not examined is that, when we attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland, we cannot be here when Ministers make important statements. That happened on Monday, when a number of us wanted to be here to ask questions of the Prime Minister about the Madrid debacle. We were denied that opportunity because we were in Glasgow.

Mr. Stewart: That is undoubtedly a potential problem. It is less of a problem if the Committee meets in Glasgow, which has a regular air service, but if we meet in other areas of Scotland where the air service is less frequent, those problems can arise and the authorities should deal with them in a practical way.
I welcome these sensible and practical proposals. However, the debate has revealed that a number of detailed questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House need to be answered to ensure that the proposals are made as practicable and workable as possible.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to note that the amendments to the Standing Orders have at least restored the confidence of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), which I thought was rather strange. He then had the common sense to add "only a little".
I find them so sadly lacking in imagination and divergent thinking that I wonder whether they come from the pen of the Secretary of State for Scotland at all. He was the Minister who gave us "Reservicing Britain", which led to compulsory competitive tendering, and has caused great harm to local government services. He was also the Minister who gave us the poll tax. At least that was inspired—mad, but inspired—whereas these proposals are not at all inspired.
As I go round the line of route with some of my guests, I show them the Magna Carta and explain that, at that time, the people of the country—at least, the lords—had to be consulted by the king before he passed vital Acts of Parliament. I also point out that, although they were consulted, they could rarely persuade the king not to do his own will at bidding.
Those are the kind of Standing Orders that we have before us. The Government wheel Scottish Members around to the Scottish Grand Committee at various locations, where they are consulted, but then pay no attention to what they say. I have heard much criticism of members of local government for not consulting in that way. The Standing Orders are not intended to change the fundamental flaw in the United Kingdom's democratic system, which is that the majority of Scottish people reject the Government's policies, but they will be put through through either the present ritual in the Scottish Grand Committee or the extended ritual set down in the Standing Orders.
A former Prime Minister talked about his preference for "talk, talk" rather than "war, war". [HON. MEMBERS: "Jaw, jaw."] "Jaw, jaw" is a different phrase, but it has the same meaning: better to talk, therefore to avoid conflict.
The Standing Orders will show the people of Scotland again and again the pointlessness of the Scottish Grand Committee and therefore underline the fact that they must go to war with the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements if they are to achieve real progress and democracy for Scotland.
On that basis, I welcome the fact that the more people see the flaws in the Standing Orders and how the Scottish Grand Committee operates, even with the extended changes, the more they will see how pointless it is to have a Scottish Grand Committee in a United Kingdom Parliament that then uses the voting power of English Members to deny the views put forward by the majority of hon. Members representing Scotland.
All parties, apart from the Conservative party, will normally speak against the Government's position but, ultimately, the Government will bring the matter down to the House of Commons.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee should determine legislation in Scotland? The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) refused to answer the question; will the hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Connarty: My argument is that any process of democratic arrangement should be one where the majority of the people, in a position where there is subsidiarity and devolved government, make the decision on those items that relate to the Scottish—[Interruption.] I do not believe that the Scottish Grand Committee is the right place to make that type of decision. We wish to see a Scottish devolved Parliament with the proper devolution of subsidiary powers—in the Scottish context, of those things that the Scottish people wish to be controlled by that Parliament.
There will be consultation, but we shall not have the right to persuade the Government to change their route. The argument made again and again is that the Committee may discuss non-controversial Bills—we have probably set out along that road—such as the health and safety at raves Act or the Licensing Scotland (Amendment) Bill. However, let us consider what the effect would be if a Bill were controversial.
We would be able to have a Second Reading debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. It would then be sent to a Scottish Standing Committee, with an inbuilt majority for the Government. If it went back to the later stage, as was explained to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire points of principle could not be raised again on Third Reading.
Obviously, the measure is a sham. It is a way of taking us to various venues, and I welcome any chance to debate with the Government at any time anywhere, but it will not prevent the Scottish people from concluding that the majority of the people of Scotland, through their representatives in the House, cannot influence the Government's decisions on what they would call controversial issues.
That is what is wrong with the measure. There is no acceptance in any of the Standing Orders that the majority of the Scottish people reject the Conservative Government's policies on what they call controversial matters. Controversial matters cannot be voted down; nor, at any Committee stage in a Scottish Standing Committee, can controversial amendments be passed on the basis of the majority of the Scottish people's wishes.


We witnessed that, although we tried our best, during the passage of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, which has been cited as an Act that did everything. It had a Special Standing Committee, which took evidence, but when the Government did not wish to accept controversial amendments in Committee, they voted them down. Then they brought the Bill to the Floor of the House, and voted down any further amendments. When they did not like amendments that were passed in the House of Lords, they brought the Bill back again, and used their majority in the Chamber to vote down those amendments.
That is why I think it is important to realise that the Standing Orders will do one thing, and only one thing, for Scottish democracy. It will be exhibited again and again, through the use of those procedures, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is trying to sell the people of Scotland an insufficient change to the constitutional arrangements for Scotland within the United Kingdom. I welcome the measures on that basis. The more they expose the Government's flaws and lack of democracy, the more people will demand a Scottish devolved Parliament under the Labour Government after the general election.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel like Banquo's ghost who has just arrived at the feast. Forgive me if I do not join in the very modest celebration that is going on.
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about those measures representing evolution. It is evolution of a gey shilpit cratur. I noticed that the Leader of the House believed that the measures would be widely welcomed in Scotland, but he means that they will be widely ignored in Scotland. There is no big deal in any of that.
It is typical of the Westminster system that the debate was opened by two Members of Parliament representing English constituencies, and the measures have about that much relevance to Scotland. I have heard more in the Chamber offered to the south sea island of Tuvalu than I have heard offered to Scotland. At least Tuvalu will get independence; we only have the load of old rubbish presented to us tonight.
There is a proposition that England and Wales Ministers can come and attend the Scottish Grand Committee. It probably serves them right, but it may be important, because English Ministers have a habit of overruling the wishes of the Scottish Office. I have seen that all too often in agriculture and fishing—if I can mention fishing to the Minister, who will be rather sensitive about that subject.
I ask the Minister: what budgets have been given for those meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland? Who will pay for the security of all those bigwigs who arrive on an awayday ticket to Scotland every so often? Will that be a burden on local authorities? Who will pay for that?
The changes are minor changes to the Scottish Grand Committee. If they had been made at any time in the past 30 years, no one would have noticed. To my mind, it is simply deckchair shuffling time on The Titanic, while the

orchestra plays "Land of Hope and Glory", but I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that, as a ruse, it will not work.
The changes will allow the Prime Minister or other bigwigs to join the Scottish Grand Committee travelling circus, and that is no big deal for Scotland. They might persuade the Prime Minister or some of the other England and Wales Ministers to concentrate on Scottish affairs for a morning, and perhaps that would be some limited good.
In reality, the Scottish Grand Committee has no powers. It is simply a talking shop, based on a technicality. It can merely decide that it has or has not decided that it has decided that it has met, and it is about that much use to the whole of Scotland. It is no substitute for a Parliament, or for the real return of decision-making power to the Scottish people.
I will agree this far with what I heard in some of the speeches. When the Scottish people see exactly what worth and what good the Westminster system is to them, we shall obtain the result that is the only true future for our nation, which is true independence, when the Scottish people can decide their own future through their own democratically elected Parliament. The measures are trivial, betraying a trivial approach to Scotland's needs. They will pass, but they will not do.
All I can say is, if this is the union—

Mr. Sam Galbraith: We have got all night right now, laddie.

Mr. Welsh: Not really. It does not take long to reply to this load of old rubbish, which the hon. Gentleman accepts is good enough for his country, but I certainly do not and will not.
If this is the union at its sparkling best, I am indeed happy for the future of Scotland.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise that I shall be very brief.

Mr. Galbraith: Ten minutes: it is getting good and depressing here.

Dr. Godman: I begin by asking a question. [Interruption.] It is a serious question. Has Greenock been ruled out for the staging of a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee? I should like the Trade and Industry Minister to be there, answering questions concerning the shipbuilding industry and other maritime industries. I should also like to hear from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), tonight about the placing of a certain contract for the construction of a fisheries research vessel, but that does not fall within the framework of the amendments.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: It should be a Scottish shipyard.

Dr. Godman: I am happy to know that Fergusons will build that ship. It is a Scottish fisheries research vessel, and it should be built in a premier yard in Scotland—Fergusons of Port Glasgow.
I also draw attention to the fact that, if we are to attend those frequent meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in different towns and cities, that prevents us from coming


to this place to hear important statements from the Dispatch Box. I for one wanted to be here yesterday to hear the Prime Minister speak, and I got here as quickly as I could, just in time for the tail end of that statement. That simply is not good enough for Scots Members.
I ask the Secretary of State, a serious question. Where there is a clash, would it be possible to consider a ministerial statement being made later in the day, or postponed until the following day?
The lack of facilities has been mentioned. In that regard, I offer my compliments to the councils of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow for the fine hospitality that they extended to us. It was interesting to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) finally making it to the lord provost's chair. I do not believe that he ever sat in that chair when he was a councillor in Glasgow, although he deserved to sit in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I for one would welcome the opportunity to cross-examine our premier Law Officer on Lockerbie, and just what the heck is happening to the pursuit of the people alleged to have committed the murders on that terrible day in December 1988. We also need to challenge him on other issues, such as the operation of Acts of Parliament that seek to give greater protection to children when they give evidence in our courts of law. When Ministers attend meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee, they should come by invitation of the members of the Committee. Its meetings should not be used as a travelling press conference, as one was recently by the Secretary of State, when about 16 journalists were present to hear his less than informative speech on spending.
Speaking as a federalist, I believe that the only answer in the long run is to have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Parliament, an English Parliament and a Northern Ireland Parliament. The Scottish Grand Committee is a talking shop; it has taken on the characteristics of a travelling talking shop. Some of us will be lucky—or unlucky—and it will come to our constituencies; owing to the size of our majorities, some of us will, I suspect, be excluded from that privilege.

Mr. George Robertson: It is appropriate for the Scottish team to have a few words at the end of the debate. I know that we are not allowed to mention the people in the Galleries this evening, but if I were allowed to do so, I would be able to say that on a rainy, wet night in London, the Strangers Gallery contained three people—exactly the same number as are present in the Press Gallery.
What does that say for the argument that the measure will bring Scottish affairs back to the nation? My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) say that they have been so captivated by our brief debate that they intend to make at least a couple of visits to the Scottish Grand Committee—in Stornoway, Ayr, Stirling, Eyemouth, Unst and who knows where. If the Scottish Whip gets his way, it may even go to Dalkeith.
I should make it clear for the purpose of certain hon. Members who do not seem to have noticed what is happening that we do not intend to vote against the

provisions this evening. Any extra debates in Scotland are to be welcomed. The opportunity to cross-examine some Ministers north of the border may be useful. I can imagine no better way of reducing Tory party support in Scotland from 13 per cent. to single figures than to bring up the Secretary of State for Defence to go around and defend his policies.
We were told only a few weeks ago that the measure was the big rabbit that the Secretary of State was going to pull out of his hat to try to grab some headlines from the Scottish Constitutional Convention launch. The big white rabbit was to be the big white Prime Minister appearing in an unknown location in Scotland.
As people across Scotland have seen, the reality is an admission that the Government have got their policy on Scotland and the constitution wrong for 16 years. I know that behind the Secretary of State for Scotland are diehard Unionists who have held to that line for 16 years and who must be deeply worried about the way in which the argument has been thrown away; in its place, in the vacuum that the right hon. Gentleman has created, is a pathetic substitute for what the Scottish people want.
The Prime Minister admits that there is a fault and a flaw. The Prime Minister admits failure on the constitution; all we have is some pretty tawdry window dressing. The Secretary of State for Scotland comes to the Scottish Office in a blaze of glory; he discards the ideas of his predecessors, and tells us that he has the answer. But with exactly the same arrogant contempt for public opinion in Scotland, he tells the Scottish people that he has made up his mind, and that this is his choice, and his alone.
That will never be acceptable to the Scottish people, 87 per cent. of whom reject the Conservative party, leaving the party in splendid—and now mobile—isolation. The people of Scotland will not be fobbed off by a few Cabinet Ministers who choose to wander around Scotland, making a case that has, until now, persuaded nobody.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has said, the Scottish people are intelligent enough, and aware enough, to see the Government's argument in all its stark hypocrisy. In Northern Ireland and for Northern Ireland, the Government say in the framework document that what is required is not to beef up clause 99 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or to beef up the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, but a full-scale, legislative Assembly for Northern Ireland. Some 90 members are to be suggested for that legislative Assembly. [Interruption.] I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is telling the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) to shut up and stop his endless prattling. The Under-Secretary of State may gain some glory in his brief parliamentary career for making more sedentary interventions than anyone else.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is it my hon. Friend's understanding that the Northern Ireland Assembly is to be funded by an orange tax?

Mr. Robertson: I shall not rise to that bait.
On a serious point, the framework document makes it clear that the sources of funding for the Northern Ireland Assembly are open to negotiation. Nothing has been ruled out by Her Majesty's Government for Northern Ireland, although they have ruled out everything for Scotland.


A party of government that is down to 13 per cent. in Scotland—to the bottom of the barrel—should act with a little humility. There may have come a time, even for this Secretary of State for Scotland—who foisted the poll tax on Scotland, whence it went to the rest of the country—to listen to the Scottish people who so decisively reject him. Instead of coming up with wheezes and public relations gimmicks that he is willing to parade in the streets of Scotland without any dignity, he should take heed of the work being done in the consensus-based forum of the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
We cannot vote for what the Scottish people want, because the Scottish Parliament is not on offer tonight, but in the next 15 months there will be an election and the Scottish people will be able to choose what they want. They will be able to vote for the Scottish Parliament for which they have asked for all these years; we shall deliver it, and Scotland will be the better for it.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The Scottish people will certainly not want to have anything to do with the tartan tax proposed by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—just as the Leader of the Opposition wanted nothing to do with it. If the hon. Gentleman is correct that the proposals are such a bad idea, is it not significant that he and his colleagues will once again sit on their hands and decline to vote against them tonight? Labour Members decried the tax cuts in much the same way, but when it comes to the crunch they cannot vote against the proposals, because they knew that they are popular.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) at least had the good grace to recognise that this is an opportunity for us to perform our work in Scotland more effectively and to improve legislation for Scotland. This week's meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Glasgow was a marvellous example of how it is possible for hon. Members from different political parties to put their differences aside and discuss serious issues, such as drugs, and take forward the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not recognise that.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talked about panic. If she wants panic, she should have seen her leader on his day trip to Scotland. He started the day by assuring us that there would be no tartan tax unless it were in the Labour manifesto—and he gave an assurance that it would not be. By the end of the day—after some fancy footwork on the part of the hon. Member for Hamilton—the Leader of the Opposition supported the hon. Gentleman in his call for a tartan tax. At least, I think that was the Leader of the Opposition's position. The Scottish people will have nothing to do with a tax-raising Parliament.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked me if this is the end. No, it is not. When I made my statement to the House, I said that I was open to positive suggestions. At least the hon. Gentleman has the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the Constitutional Convention's proposals would mean the end of the office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is still living in cloud cuckoo land, where he thinks he can have his cake and eat it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) welcomed the proposals, and I am grateful for his support. The hon. Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) emphasised the importance of proper facilities. I am relieved to learn that not everyone in the Labour party has sharp suits and mobile telephones—although I must admit that the hon. Member for Springburn has a sharp suit. But it is a serious point, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged.
The hon. Member for Springburn also referred to the presence of the Whip. Far be it from me to make a plea on behalf of the Whips, but the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) intervened during the Scottish Grand Committee hearing in Edinburgh to complain about his inability to talk to the usual channels. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Springburn remembers that, but perhaps he should have a word with his hon. Friend, who does not seem to have the right line from the Whips Office.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire welcomed the changes. He asked me whether there would be more opportunities to deal with Scottish legislation in the Grand Committee. I hope there will, and that measures that would otherwise have to wait their turn as private Members' business can be considered in the Grand Committee. That would demand some restraint, and co-operation through the usual channels, but there is a real chance that we could achieve that goal. The hon. Gentleman has recognised that opportunity, and I welcome his support.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about Ministers from Departments other than the Scottish Office appearing before the Scottish Grand Committee. It is obviously for the Government to decide who should answer particular debates. However, the nature of the subjects chosen for debate should select which Minister will respond.
For example, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for railways and roads appeared before the Scottish Grand Committee during its consideration of the Fort William sleeper service. That is an obvious example of a Minister from the relevant Department appearing before the Committee. I am sure that Department of Transport officials found it very useful briefing the Minister for that debate.
I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). He asked a key question which the hon. Member for Hamilton has not yet answered: if we are able to take legislation through the Grand Committee and hold members of the Executive to account in Scotland, what could a Scottish Parliament with a majority of Labour Members do under a Labour Government that could not be done in the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mrs. Ann Taylor: It could make decisions.

Mr. Forsyth: I appreciate that any Labour Government would find making decisions very difficult. However, a Scottish Grand Committee with a Labour majority under a Labour Government would be able to do everything that a Scottish Parliament could do, except one thing: raise a tartan tax, and make the Scots pay more income tax than the English. A Scottish Parliament would not be able to hold the Prime Minister and Ministers to account in the way that the Scottish Grand Committee can.


My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood is absolutely correct to make that point, and to draw attention to the fact that hon. Members will be able to ask more questions in the Committee. I take his point about times, and that matter will be settled through the usual channels. I appreciate his comments about private Members' business, but I ask him to take on board the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I think that we will have a real chance to take through uncontroversial measures, which would not otherwise not be available to us, as Government measures.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) talked about my unpopular policies in Scotland. They were so unpopular that I twice defeated the hon. Gentleman at the ballot box in Stirling before he ran off to Falkirk.
The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) brought the pantomime scene to our proceedings a little early, by giving us the analogy of the Titanic. If he was comparing our position to that, he must have been the iceberg. I can only assume that there is a lot more below the surface than was apparent from his contribution to the debate.

Mr. Welsh: I remind the Minister that I also used the analogy of Banquo's ghost, who led to the denouement of the play by reminding the criminals of their crime.

Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that, after all his rude comments about the English, the hon. Gentleman still acknowledges the importance of Shakespeare as a good English poet and playwright.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow asked whether the Scottish Grand Committee would be able to come to Greenock. Obviously, it is a matter for the House authorities to consider possible venues, but I understand that the Opposition have suggested Ayr. As there may be a particular problem with the date in Ayr, if the hon. Gentleman has a word with his hon. Friend, that might be a possibility. As to the choice of subjects, the Opposition have their allotted days.
The measure is a positive step forward. It gives Scottish Members the opportunity to demonstrate to their electors their commitment to good government in Scotland. It provides an opportunity for the Opposition to hold the Government to account for their policies—I shall not place too much emphasis on that. Although the Opposition have a ragbag of confused people proposing a tartan tax on the people of Scotland, they clearly have to sort out their own act before holding the Government to account. The proposals represent an opportunity, and I commend them to the House.

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [14 December].

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) be amended, as follows:

line 17, after 'consideration', insert 'or further consideration';
line 30, leave out from 'committee,' to 'Standing' in line 32 and insert 'made under paragraph (6) of';
line 33, at the end, add—

'(3) Any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of the House, though not a member of the committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee and may make a motion, but shall not vote or be counted in the quorum.';

(2) Standing Order No. 94C (Scottish Grand Committee (short debates)) be amended, as follows:
line 8, leave out from `to' to the end of line 9 and insert `Scotland';
line 19, leave out from `No' to 'replying' in line 20 and insert `Member except the Minister of the Crown';
line 24, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 25, leave out 'members of the committee' and insert `Members';
line 27, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member';
(3) Standing Order No. 94D (Scottish Grand Committee (ministerial statements)) be amended, as follows:

line 2, leave out 'Scottish Office minister or a Scottish law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 3, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member of the House';
line 10, leave out 'minister or law officer, as the case may be,' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 12, after 'responsibilities', insert `so far as they relate to Scotland, which, in the case of a Scottish law officer, shall be';
line 13, leave out 'thirteenth' and insert 'relevant';
line 17, after 'conclusion', insert 'either at an hour appointed by an order of the committee, for which a motion may be made without notice by a member of the government immediately before the commencement of such proceedings, on which motion the question shall be put forthwith, or, if no such motion is made,';
line 31, leave out 'minister or law officer' and insert 'Minister of the Crown';
line 32, leave out 'member of the committee' and insert `Member of the House';
line 34, leave out 'such a minister or law officer';

(4) Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) be amended in line 52, at the end, by adding the following paragraphs:
'(7) At the conclusion of proceedings on consideration on report of a bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (3) above, or on the order being read for the third reading of such a bill, a motion may be made by a member of the government (or in the case of a private Member's bill, by the Member in charge of the bill), "That the Bill be referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee"; and the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed:
Provided that such a motion may be made by a private Member only with the leave of the House.
(8) A bill so referred again to the Scottish Grand Committee shall be considered on a motion, "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle"; and, when the committee has considered that question for a total of one and a half hours (whether on one or more than one day), the chairman shall put the question necessary to dispose of the motion, and shall then report accordingly to the House (or shall report that the committee has come to no resolution), without any further question being put thereon:
Provided that a member of the government may, immediately before the motion "That the Committee has further considered the bill in relation to its principle" is made, make without notice a motion to extend the time-limit specified in this paragraph; and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith.


(9) A bill in respect of which a report has been made under paragraph (8) above shall be ordered to be read the third time on a future day.
(10) When a motion shall have been made for the third reading of a bill to which paragraph (9) above applies, the question thereon shall be put forthwith and may be decided at any hour, though opposed.';
(5) Standing Order No. 94H (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)) be amended, as follows:
line 43, after 'proceedings', insert '(other than on a motion made under paragraph (6) below)';
line 55, after 'proceedings', insert 'or on the completion of the business appointed for consideration at that sitting, whichever is the earlier,';
(6) Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended, in line 7, after 'than', by inserting 'a motion in the Scottish Grand Committee under Standing Order No. 94A (Scottish Grand Committee (composition and business)) or'; and
(7) Standing Order No. 91 (Special standing committees) be amended, as follows:

line 18, leave out 'morning sittings' and insert 'sittings at which oral evidence may be given';
line 19, after 'Scotland', insert 'in which case those sittings need not be held in the morning'.

HUMBER BRIDGE (DEBTS) BILL

Ordered,

That, if the Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that, as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Bates.]

PETITION

College Premises (Gloucester)

Mr. Douglas French: I have the honour to present a petition with 3,450 signatures, the majority of which are those of people who live in the Oxstalls area in my constituency of Gloucester.
The petition seeks to save from sale, destruction and redevelopment the Oxstalls site, a purpose-built educational building which was a thriving part of higher education in Gloucester before the formation of the Cheltenham and Gloucester college of higher education and before the attempt by the college's governing body in Cheltenham to dispose of its premises in Gloucester altogether in order to spend the proceeds on its facilities in Cheltenham.
The petition states:
The humble Petition of the people of Gloucester sheweth
That Government intervention is necessary to prevent the sale of the college site at Oxstalls, Gloucester.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House require all necessary measures be speedily taken to ensure that the publicly funded college premises at Oxstalls, Gloucester are saved from demolition and reopened for the provision of vocational and technical courses, which otherwise are not available in this area, where unemployment has increased substantially.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Caribbean (Voluntary Resettlement)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Bernie Grant: I am pleased that my Adjournment subject was chosen for this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a subject that has stirred quite a lot of debate among sections of the community, particularly among black and minority ethnic people. It is time that the House heard and understood what is being said. I welcome the opportunity of putting my case for resettlement of people in the Caribbean.
In principle, there is nothing new about the British Government providing financial assistance to people, including British citizens, who wish to resettle abroad. There have been various schemes for many years. For example, until 1988 the old supplementary benefits system provided the full cost of fares for applicants and their dependants who wished to resettle abroad. From August 1984, the scheme was restricted so that only British citizens were entitled to come within it. The maximum allowed per person was two years' worth of benefit.
According to information provided in a written answer, between 1972 and 1986 about 1,208 people were assisted under the supplementary benefits system, at a cost of £216,654.
Since 1988, when supplementary benefit was abolished and replaced by the social fund, no equivalent provision has been available. Since 1971, however, there has been limited provision available under the Immigration Act 1971. I refer to the scheme that has been run on behalf of the Government by International Social Services, which is located in Brixton. I wonder why the Government chose that location?
The scheme provides for those who are not British citizens to obtain the cost of fares for themselves and their families plus a small sum for the transportation of their effects. Between 1971 and 1975 about 2,545 people took advantage of the scheme, the overwhelming majority of them to return to the Caribbean region. The level of interest in the scheme, however, is far higher, with the number of initial inquiries reaching more than 900 in one particular year. I know from my constituency case work that many of those who inquire are turned down because they are British citizens. Clearly there is a gap in provision.
There are other schemes at a European level run by the International Organisation for Migration, the IOM. The IOM facilitates return to the country of origin. Its excellent programme for the return and reintegration of qualified African nationals began in 1983, and more than 1,250 people have been assisted, about half of them coming from the United Kingdom.
The project is now paid for by the European Union and thus, in part, by the British Government, who support the project. The IOM has a major centre that is located in London. Phase 3 of the project began in January 1995. It will assist a further 999 professionals to return to targeted jobs in targeted countries or regions. It will pay for their travel costs, the cost of professional equipment and various reintegration allowances.
Interestingly, the IOM also ran a programme last year to assist 40 professionals to return to Jamaica. Eleven places were filled by United Kingdom applicants. A larger scheme involving 50 places is likely to be run in 1996. It is hoped to expand the scheme to embrace the entire Caribbean in due course. I repeat that the Government fully support the scheme.
Today, the IOM's co-ordinator told me:
This programme has aroused a great deal of interest, and from our conversations with applicants we know that there are many who wish to return to Jamaica".
She continued:
"We fully support your initiative"—
meaning my initiative—
in raising this issue, and we would be prepared to run a larger return programme if funding was available.
It is now time, I believe, for a thorough review of existing provision in this area and for a more realistic scheme to facilitate resettlement. It is my considered view that that would be in the interests of Britain, the Caribbean and most certainly of those who wish to resettle. There are, in other words, coinciding interests that would make such a scheme a logical development. I also believe that a suitable scheme could be developed at no additional cost to the public purse.
There is no doubt that there is increased interest in resettlement. People have already left for the Caribbean in considerable numbers; there is a sizeable drift of thousands of people back to the region. The Jamaican Government estimate that some 2,000 people returned from the UK to Jamaica in 1994. Barbados, Dominica, Antigua and Guyana are also popular destinations for returning residents. Organisations have been set up in Britain to assist those wishing to return, such as the Organisation of Returning Jamaicans and Associates, which is flourishing. It is interesting that the person who heads that organisation, Mark Le Ban, said to me only yesterday that its management committee is made up of Jamaican people aged between 30 and 45, so it is not only elderly people who wish to return.
Those who have already resettled—including those who were born in the region as well as those who were born in Britain—are the more prosperous, the retired or professionals with marketable skills, and entrepreneurs who can afford the travel and settlement costs involved. Many of us would dearly wish to resettle but do not have the means to do so. I have had a huge number of letters from such people from all over the country, including my constituents, who are desperately seeking help to return home. Many of the letters come from those in the caring professions, seeking my help for their clients in that regard. They include the elderly, many of whom came here in the 1950s and 1960s, at the specific request of the British Government, and never intended to remain here for long. However, the streets of Britain turned out not to be paved with gold and they were never in a position to return.
There are others who are chronically ill and never likely to work again in Britain who would prefer to return home to the Caribbean. Like the retired, they are frequently trapped by a benefit system that would cut them off from the benefits that they have earned if they were to go back. One of my constituents, for example, is now retired and longs to return to the Caribbean. If she did so, however, her state pension would be frozen at its current level and


all benefits for her dependent disabled daughter would be curtailed, because they are payable only in Britain. Does anyone really give a hoot whether in such a case that young lady's benefit is paid in Britain or in the Caribbean?
The social security system is similarly inflexible so far as the long-term unemployed are concerned. I include here many single parents. These people know that they could advance themselves by returning to the Caribbean. However, they would find it hard to raise even the fare and would lose all benefits immediately if they left the United Kingdom. Given the high proportion of unemployed black workers who are long-term unemployed—some 60 per cent. as opposed to 44 per cent. in the white population—it makes little sense for the social security system to close off the option of return. It would not be so outrageous for such people, properly supervised, to be allowed benefit-equivalent sums for a few months to enable them to explore that option. Far higher sums are already spent on "make work" schemes here in Britain.
Another group frequently approaches me. It comprises people who are in work—often skilled or professional people—and who would like, at least for a time, to use their skills to assist in the development of countries with which they have a connection, such as those in the Caribbean, with a view to resettlement. There is currently no structure to channel the aspirations of that group, and there are many practical and financial obstacles.
As I have said, Caribbean and, possibly, other interested countries in the region would welcome a resettlement programme. For many years, the region has been the subject of a brain drain: its brightest and best sons and daughters have migrated, mostly to Britain, the United States or Canada. The absence of those groups has a destabilising effect on the countries concerned, and is now a major obstacle to economic development in the region.
Several Caribbean Governments—including Guyana, Jamaica and Barbados—are encouraging people to return by making special arrangements to assist returnees. They have set up units in their foreign Ministries to assist the smooth return of their citizens; they have also made tax changes that are favourable to returning residents, and issued calls for nationals to return to their countries. They know that there are major economic spin-offs resulting from resettlement.
As I have said, a suitable scheme to assist in resettlement could be developed if the will existed. Clearly, it would need to be the subject of detailed work, but it is possible to state the principles on which such a scheme would be organised. First, any scheme would of course be entirely voluntary: there can be no question of compulsion, or of rescinding anyone's British citizenship. Secondly, it must be a responsible scheme, properly managed on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that those who return do so with the best possible advice and support. Thirdly, the scheme must be adequate, ensuring that those who take advantage of it are properly provided for. I personally would not support any scheme that left people worse off than they are in the United Kingdom in terms of living standards, health care and housing in particular. Fourthly, the ultimate veto over eligibility to the scheme must rest with the designation countries themselves. In

fact, they could well be given responsibility for administering the scheme. I have had discussions with most of the Governments involved, and they are willing to take that responsibility.
The scheme would have to be developed in full consultation with the black community here—particularly the Caribbean community—and with the designation countries. The advantages to Britain of such a scheme would be numerous. First, it is not generally in the interests of any country to have a substantial number of people in its midst who honestly do not want to be in that country. Secondly, even with the most generous scheme, there would be substantial financial advantages.
Those who approach me are all too often those who are most dependent on social benefits and health and welfare services—and, indeed, are most likely to be subsidised in various ways for their housing costs. They are also likely to be tenants of local authority housing. It would not take too much imagination to calculate a social-benefits equivalent sum for a given number of people each year that could be used as a basis for a budget for a resettlement scheme. Given the lower costs of living in the Caribbean—even after weekly benefit equivalent payments—substantial sums would be available for investment in housing, social care and health insurance. Many variations are possible.
The existing IOM scheme could well be developed substantially to cater for more of those in work who wish to return. If the costs of this part of the scheme came from the existing Overseas Development Administration budget, that would not be a bad thing: it would certainly be a more effective means of helping the countries concerned than the current practice of sending them highly paid consultants to perform key jobs there.
An enhanced resettlement programme would be in the interests of Britain, not least because it would be a recognition of the huge damage that Britain has inflicted on the Caribbean both now and in the past. Having created and exploited those countries through slavery and colonisation, Britain is abandoning them now that its economic interests lie elsewhere. Having stolen so much it would be more than fitting at this time in history for Britain to at least facilitate the return of those who wish to go back to those countries.
Some people have said that even to mention this matter is to cause damage to race relations in this country, and that to argue for a resettlement scheme is to give in to racism. I have even been accused of adopting the agenda of fascists and racists. Even the Secretary of State for the Home Department told me recently that he feared that an enhanced resettlement scheme would make black people feel unwelcome here. That is rich, coming from someone who has set back race relations by at least 20 years in the relatively short time that he has been in office. I am not convinced by these arguments. This is about creating positive choices for black people, about setting our own agenda for once, and about remembering where we came from.
Some black people will want to stay in Britain, and the fight for racial equality will continue. I shall continue to play my part in that struggle. It is true that some people want to leave because they are sick and tired of the racism that they face in this country. They are fed up with fighting racism, and I see no reason why they should be forced to do so. Others do not feel at home in Britain and


some people despair of the predominant values and culture of this society and fear for their children growing up in such a climate. Others simply wish to return to live with their families and, of course, that feeling is more common nowadays because of the absurdity of current immigration rules which keep families apart. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he tries to sum up at the end of the debate.
Against the background of all that has been done to black people historically, the House has no right to deny those people a choice about their future. We know what is happening to black people at the moment. We know about the tragic events less than a week ago in Brixton where there was a tragic death, the second in six months, of a young black person at the hands of the police. I understand that that young man was cornered in a park. He had a knife and he threw it away. The police then descended on that young person and beat him very badly. That was witnessed by several people, and I understand that the Police Complaints Authority is investigating. That was a tragic event by any stretch of the imagination. It is similar to what happened to Rodney King, and I am sure that the Minister and some of the police officers who were around would say, "What happened to Rodney King was terrible". It is my understanding, and witnesses will eventually come forward to prove it, that that is precisely what happened to young Wayne Douglas in Brixton. What concerns a number of people is that the police refuse to learn from their mistakes in the past. They should automatically have suspended the officers concerned on full pay and had an immediate inquiry into the matter.
The media played a part in this notorious affair because they should have given some prominence to yet another death within six months at the hands of the same police force and through the use of side-handled batons. Those two young black males are the first people to die as a result of the introduction of the side-handled batons that were imported from the United States of America—the same batons that killed Rodney King.
We have heard no one mention anything about that at all. I asked the Home Secretary a question on the occasion of the first death. He gave me an answer to the effect that it cost too much to find out how many people had died as a result of the introduction of the side-handled batons law. We now know—and I will tell the House—that two young black men have died as a result of such batons. They are the first to die. That in itself should require some statement from the Home Secretary. Perhaps the Minister replying to this debate will deal with that point, but I doubt it as he is involved as part of the race card that the Government are playing in relation to all these matters.

Ms Diane Abbott: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most deplorable aspects of events in Brixton is that, far from the mainstream media considering issues such as the deaths in custody or the use of side-handled batons, they have sought scapegoats such as Rudy Narayan, The Voice or the Caribbean Times newspapers? The mainstream press is criticising the ethnic press simply for printing the facts when the mainstream press would not. Would it not be more appropriate if those same papers exposed some of the issues that my hon. Friend has talked about in relation to police brutality?

Mr. Grant: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that intervention because I had missed that point. I am glad

that she reminded me of it. She is absolutely right. Far from looking for the culprits who caused this position to occur, the mainstream press has looked for a number of scapegoats, including Rudy Narayan, who represents no one except himself and who is not a voice that people in Brixton follow. Poor Rudy will probably end up in the courts and be charged for inciting riots when, if the truth were known, he could not incite himself to riot on any occasion. Such scapegoating, and the attempts of the Government and their cohorts to scapegoat people who are trying just to bring to the public's attention a serious situation in the black community, are deplorable.
As I was saying, the House has no right to deny people a choice about their future. Against the background of all that is happening and has been done to black people historically, the House owes it to them to allow them to exercise that choice. In raising this matter, I speak on behalf of many people in Britain. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider what I have said and agree at least to commission a study of how the current very limited resettlement arrangements could be suitably expanded.
I had a meeting with the Home Secretary and the Minister on this point. The Home Secretary felt that he could not support the scheme because, to put it in his words, if he were to do so, it might encourage elements to believe that black people were not welcome in this country. The Home Secretary went on to say that black people were welcome here, that they were worthy people and that they have had made a substantial contribution to Britain. That was the first time that I had heard that particular Home Secretary make such remarks. I am pleased and indebted that he found it necessary to make them. I wish that he would make them more often.

Ms Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Grant: Most certainly.

Ms Abbott: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Lady launches off, may I remind her that she is addressing me and should face the Chair?

Ms Abbott: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome though it is to hear the Home Secretary say those positive things about race relations, they come ill from someone who is promoting the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is profoundly racist and aims to criminalise, not just immigrants and asylum seekers, but black African people as a whole, especially in relation to its provisions for passport checks on employees? Someone, although not myself, might accuse him of hypocrisy in that regard.

Mr. Grant: Yes, again my hon. Friend is right on the mark—absolutely correct.
Only this morning the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and myself were all at the first sitting of the Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Any independent observer, anyone who had not been nobbled by the Home Secretary and his people, would look at that Bill and see that the motivation behind it was clearly racist.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the general burden of


his Adjournment debate is about people leaving this country, not people coming to it. I think that he should return to that.

Mr. Grant: I am always willing to take guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But for some people, in order to leave the country they first have to come into it. I am concerned both with people coming in and with people going out; some people cannot do one without the other. However, I accept your general point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I mention the Bill because it has a clear bearing on black and minority ethnic communities here. That is because the Home Secretary will require employers to ask people to provide documents to establish their right to be in this country—and we know from experience that the people who are asked for the documents will be black people.
That happens all the time. It happens when black people go to Europe. It even happens with groups of schoolchildren. The immigration officers in France, Germany and Belgium allow all the white children to go through, but they stop the black kids and ask them for special explanations about why they should be able to walk through like everyone else.
The Minister may pooh-pooh that idea, but if he does so, it shows that he is totally ignorant about the effects of his and the European Union's policies on black British citizens. If he adopts the attitude that that is a load of nonsense, and that everything is rosy in Britain, it simply exposes his personal racism in that connection. I will listen carefully to what he says, because a reasoned argument has been put forward, and I want him to address the points that have been raised.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not mean to do so, but he rather gave the impression that he was accusing another hon. Member of racism, which would definitely be unparliamentary.

Mr. Grant: I withdraw any such remark, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course the Minister is not a racist. He may act as though he were one, but I know that he is not. On that basis, I withdraw the remark.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I think that the whole House is following my hon. Friend's arguments carefully. Does he agree that, bearing in mind all the matters that have been raised during today's lobby on the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and also by himself in this important debate, even at this late stage the Government could refer the Bill to a Special Standing Committee, where all those points could be raised?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but this is going way beyond the subject of the Adjournment debate. I must ask the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), the Front-Bench spokesman, not to lead his hon. Friend astray in that way.

Mr. Grant: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for getting us back on the rails.
We shall of course fight the Asylum and Immigration Bill thoroughly in Committee. If the Minister thinks that he is in for an easy ride he had better think again, because

there will be substantial opposition both inside and outside the Committee. For the various reasons that I have outlined, there is a need for people to be given the option of returning to the Caribbean. I have also stated that the Caribbean Governments would welcome a scheme that encourages people to return. In fact, the president of Guyana recently told me that he wrote to the Prime Minister and asked him to let Guyana have Britain's unemployed skilled workers, because there was plenty of work for them in Guyana. I understand that the Prime Minister replied that because of the social security regulations, it would not be possible to do that.
I believe that imaginative schemes could be developed to give people hope and to assist young people, graduates and skilled and qualified workers who feel that there is a glass ceiling through which they cannot break. Those people could be given an opportunity of a life—or part of a life—in another area of the world. They could benefit that area, and also benefit themselves.
I have proved this evening that there are already two schemes running. The first is run by the Government, and contains within it the principle of return from this country to the Caribbean and to other countries of the world. The other scheme is run by the IOM, which has a centre here in Queen Anne's Gate in London, and is supported and financed by the Government. There are no reasons why the Government should not extend the existing schemes along the lines that I have suggested.
If the Minister dares to ask me why the British taxpayer should pay for this scheme, I will remind him that a Conservative Government in the 1950s and 1960s sent people to the Caribbean and used British taxpayers' money to recruit bus drivers, London Transport workers, nurses and others. The Minister of Labour at that time was Enoch Powell, who I am sure the Minister has heard of. The Government at that time paid for people to come here, and now some of those people wish to return. For various reasons, they might not have the means to do so. We are suggesting that the Government should use taxpayers' money to do that. Such a scheme would result in savings to the Treasury and, for no other reason, the Government should support it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I very much regret the fact that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) has again decided to raise the question of voluntary repatriation. I noted his speech this evening, and the contributions which came from the Opposition Front Bench from the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
The only saving grace of the debate is that it gives me an opportunity to restate the Government's total opposition to any scheme which actively encourages people who are lawfully settled here to return to their country of origin. Nobody who has a legal right to live in this country should be under any pressure to leave. The Government are not in the business of advocating that our own citizens emigrate to the country where their parents, grandparents or ancestors were born. I deeply resent the remarks of the hon. Member for Tottenham about my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has done so much work to improve race relations.**


[Interruption.] Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman may say from a sedentary position, Britain has greatly improved race relations, and I am proud of that fact and want it to continue.
I am also saddened by the hon. Gentleman's determination to try to use tonight's debate to provide his own conclusions about the recent disturbances in Brixton before an inquiry has been completed. The Government condemn what they see as a violent minority who attack police officers and property and who attempt to besmirch the good name of the vast majority of the people of Brixton, who are decent, caring and law-abiding citizens and want to remain that way.
I firmly believe that any measure designed to encourage repatriation or emigration by members of the ethnic community would do untold damage to race relations. It is the persistent taunt of thugs and racists that black or Asian people should "go home". If the Government set up a scheme actively promoting repatriation or immigration of ethnic minorities as a good thing, that would be to endorse the racists' odious views. I do not believe that the House would want that.
The Government are committed to creating a fair and integrated society. We are working hard to reduce racial discrimination.

Mr. Bernie Grant: Rubbish.

Mr. Kirkhope: I repeat: we are working hard to reduce racial discrimination, to tackle racial violence and to ensure that everyone, irrespective of the colour of his skin, enjoys the same opportunities in this country. Good race relations need to be constantly worked at; we all, including the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, know that. Any Government-sponsored measure that implied to ethnic minorities that they were unwelcome could only have a detrimental effect on race relations. There is absolutely no place for such proposals in our work.
I know that the hon. Member for Tottenham has a number of proposals. He raised them with the Home Secretary in my presence on 6 December. As he has said, the Home Secretary was certainly not persuaded that the hon. Gentleman's proposals deserved further consideration. He does not intend to change the present arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman has also said, the Government fund a small humanitarian scheme under which people with few savings—not British citizens—can be given basic financial assistance to return overseas, when it is in their best interests to do so and they wish to go. The assistance is limited to the travel fare and the cost of transporting a small number of personal possessions.
About 60 people a year benefit from the scheme. They are mainly elderly people, often without close family ties here; and most of them return to Jamaica. The important point is that only those with very low savings of less than £3,000 are eligible for full assistance. The scheme is low key and the assistance is limited. That of course is deliberate. The scheme does not set out to persuade people to leave Britain. It seeks to help those whose hearts are set on returning home, where they have satisfactory future arrangements and the only significant obstacle is the cost of the travel. We see no reason to change these arrangements, and we have recently agreed to extend the current scheme for a further five years.
I turn now to some of the suggestions that the hon. Member for Tottenham has made. He has said that he thinks that British citizens should be eligible for help. Our

objection to that is straightforward: we do not think it appropriate for the Government to pay for the removal of British citizens to a foreign country. There would in any event be numerous practical problems in administering such a scheme, which would be wide open to abuse and which would attract all sorts of opportunists to apply. Effective administration would be difficult and expensive and the Government can see no good purpose in pursuing such ideas further.
Another of the hon. Member's ideas is that young unemployed people of Afro-Caribbean descent but who were born in the United Kingdom should be encouraged to emigrate to Africa and the Caribbean. He appears seriously to think that the Government should pay for such young people to leave our country. We value our young people in this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member may laugh but we value our young people. I find his idea not only outlandish but offensive. I cannot believe that sending young people to a country of which they probably have little no or experience would help them in the least.
We take the problem of unemployed people seriously. That is why we are committed to having a dynamic economy in which jobs are created for them, not destroyed. The Labour party would, as we all know, destroy jobs through its schemes and ideas. The way to help unemployed young people is to train and educate them so that they can find jobs. We are trying to do that more and more. The answer is not to send them back to the country from which their ancestors came. A Government-funded emigration programme is emphatically not the answer.

Mr. Grant: The Minister says fine words about how the Government want to do things about unemployment. Among black young people aged between 15 and 25 in Tottenham, unemployment is 65 per cent. What are the Government doing to get those people jobs?

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Member is well aware of the schemes that the Government employ to try to give jobs to, and provide training for, young people. There are schemes operating in his area that he surely must be aware of. He should give credit to the people involved with that. Some of those people are paid directly by the Government, some are indirectly paid and some are voluntary workers. He knows well of the schemes. I will be delighted to discuss the matter further with him at another time. The Government are concerned that young people should have jobs in this country and not be encouraged to leave the country.
What would the receiving country think of us if we sought to export young people in that way? We have no information to suggest that those countries would be keen on that.

Mr. Grant: I have.

Mr. Kirkhope: We have no evidence of that. I would be extremely surprised if they were as keen as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The BBC "Newsnight" coverage of the issue on 6 December made a helpful contribution to rational debate. What I found especially striking were the stories of old people who had visited their countries of origin in the West Indies after decades away and their bewilderment at how much things, and they themselves,


had changed. Many saw their lives clearly now as being firmly based in Britain. They did not want to return. If that is the case for people of their generation, who were born abroad, how much more true would it be for people born in the United Kingdom who have British attitudes and presumptions about life? Life in the West Indies could come as a cultural shock—and not inevitably a pleasant one—for them.
The hon. Member referred to a number of other schemes that involve financial assistance with the travel and other costs of movements between one country and another. I acknowledge the presence of those schemes. There is, for instance, a European scheme under the Lomé convention, to which I think the hon. Gentleman alluded, that encourages, as a form of overseas aid to Jamaica, young Jamaican professionals to take up posts which would otherwise be filled by foreign experts. That scheme aims to boost the Jamaican economy.
Similarly, the International Organisation for Migration assists refugee and asylum seeker movements, usually under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I must emphasise again the limited nature of such schemes and the Government's belief that they should and must remain limited.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary told the hon. Member for Tottenham when we met him on 6 December, the Government are totally opposed to encouraging voluntary repatriation, let alone emigration. To do so would send out all the wrong messages to ethnic minority communities and, worse still, play into the hands of racists. That is well recognised by many influential sections within those communities and I am pleased that they have not been slow to criticise the hon. Member for doing so. I emphasise that the Government's view is that everybody in Britain, regardless of race or creed, should have a fair chance. They do not think that there should be measures that discriminate between races, as the hon. Member's suggestions seem to.
The hon. Member has long been interested in this subject, but I simply do not agree that the extension to the current very limited arrangements that he has in mind would provide a solution to race relations problems or necessarily help the individuals with whom he says he is concerned. The way to improve race relations is positive participation by all ethnic minority groups in British society, so that they are not socially excluded or disadvantaged in any aspect of life here. This country is greatly strengthened by the different ethnic groups that make up our population. We have all gained from their commitment to Britain's success in every field: economic;

social; artistic; and sporting. I totally reject the suggestion that the Government should actively encourage members of those communities to leave this country because they would be better off elsewhere.

Ms Abbott: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is aware, I do not support his scheme for repatriation in the shape that he proposes. However, the Minister fails to understand that my hon. Friend's proposals have struck a tremendous chord in the black community. That is a symptom of the deep alienation, disaffection and unhappiness that many black people of all ages feel about their lives in this country. I have listened carefully to the Minister but much of what he has said reeks of hypocrisy. Moreover, he clearly fails to understand the reality of life for many black people in this country.

Mr. Kirkhope: The hon. Lady is entitled to her point of view. She says that the hon. Gentleman's proposals have struck a chord with the black community, but they have been received with great unhappiness in many sections of the ethnic minority community in this country. I believe that the Government's view on this matter reflects the majority's view. It also reflects the view that race relations are important to the Government and the country as a whole.

Mr. Grant: I am aware that a group representing the Asian community, and one or two people from the West Indian community, went to see the Home Secretary recently. The West Indian Standing Conference voted almost to a person in support of my scheme. My scheme has nothing to do with the Indian sub-continent, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka; it concerns the Caribbean. Which Caribbean groups support the Government against my proposals?

Mr. Kirkhope: I shall not get into a contest with the hon. Gentleman on which groups support his proposal. As far as I know, he has been unable to persuade the Opposition Front Bench, although the presence tonight of the Opposition spokesman for the inner cities seems to show some support from the Labour party for his ideas. The Government do not support his ideas and have no intention of doing so. I have no idea whether his proposals might become Labour party policy. He must discuss that with his Front Bench spokesmen.
Tonight, I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in pursuing policies that promote good race relations rather than those that he put forward, which might jeopardise them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.